On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 7:40 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I will revert this in a few days.
Done.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 3:39 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 6:45 AM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > No, this is a fix, not a feature, as discussed in the thread; as
> > mentioned in the commit message, the previous version of postgres_fdw
> > could cause surprising behaviors that would ne
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 6:45 AM Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> No, this is a fix, not a feature, as discussed in the thread; as
> mentioned in the commit message, the previous version of postgres_fdw
> could cause surprising behaviors that would never happen in normal
> cases where a read-only and/or defer
On 2025/06/03 19:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 12:33 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 12:03:50PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I'm not sure this change should be considered a bug fix,
since the current behavior of postgres_fdw with a local read-only
transactio
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 12:33 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 12:03:50PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > I'm not sure this change should be considered a bug fix,
> > since the current behavior of postgres_fdw with a local read-only
> > transaction isn't clearly documented. Some us
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 12:03:50PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I'm not sure this change should be considered a bug fix,
> since the current behavior of postgres_fdw with a local read-only
> transaction isn't clearly documented. Some users might see this
> as a behavioral change rather than a fix. A
On 2025/06/01 17:34, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
postgres_fdw: Inherit the local transaction's access/deferrable modes.
Previously, postgres_fdw always 1) opened a remote transaction in READ
WRITE mode even when the local transaction was READ ONLY, causing a READ
ONLY transaction using it that refer
