On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, let's go back to the JDBC method, then. "show
> transaction_read_only" will return true on a standby, but presumably
> also on any other non-writable node. You could even force it to be
> true artificially if you wanted to force traffic off of a node, using
> ALTER {SYSTEM|USER ...|DATABASE ..} SET default_transaction_read_only
> = on
>
> I think that would address Alvaro's concern, and it's nicer anyway if
> libpq and JDBC are doing the same thing.
Not sure I agree that using this is a good idea in the first place.
But if we end up using this, I really think the docs should be very
explicit about what's implemented and not just say master/any. With
the master/any docs in the patch I would be *very* surprised if a
master is skipped only because it was configured with
default_transaction_read_only = on.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
