On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > However, as Michael also points out, it's arguably wrong to allow a > nominally read-only transaction to write data regardless of whether it > works. In the case of a standby it could be argued that your > transaction is only read-only because you had no other choice, but > nonetheless that's how it is marked. I have a feeling that if we > extend the definition of "read only" to mean "sometimes allow writes", > we may regret it.
I still have the same feeling. What I am sure of is that this patch is not the correct way to do things. So I am marking it as returned with feedback. This is not a rejection from my side, as I think that this feature could be useful in some cases, but its design needs way more thoughts. -- Michael
