On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 19:02 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Huh? The "read only" transaction mode is not hard read-only > anyway, > so if that's the only step being taken, it's entirely useless. > > > I think there are explicit checks for some utility statements (like > VACUUM), but I haven't checked if all necessary code paths are covered > or not. The commands that need protecting have been explicitly identified in the notes and there are 7 files changed that were specifically identified with protective changes. You've identified a way of breaking part the first line of defence, but the command was caught by the second line of defence in the patch. Problem, yes. Major issue, no. Will fix. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
