Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > >> I am wondering if it wouldn't be simpler and more logical to allow >> idempotent changes of these settings at any time, and to restrict >> only changes that actually change something.  It feels really >> weird to all

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-24 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas wrote: > I am wondering if it wouldn't be simpler and more logical to allow > idempotent changes of these settings at any time, and to restrict > only changes that actually change something. It feels really > weird to allow changing these properties to their own values at > any time

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Robert Haas  wrote: > >> Upon further review, I am wondering if it wouldn't be simpler and >> more logical to allow idempotent changes of these settings at any >> time, and to restrict only changes that actually change something. > > I don'

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-21 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas wrote: > Upon further review, I am wondering if it wouldn't be simpler and > more logical to allow idempotent changes of these settings at any > time, and to restrict only changes that actually change something. I don't care a lot about that either -- if I remember correctly, we go

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> Jeff Janes wrote: >>> I found the following message somewhat confusing: >>> ERROR:  read-only property must be set before any query >> >> I think what we need here is two messages, this one and a similar >> one that s

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-21 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas wrote: > Jeff Janes wrote: >> I found the following message somewhat confusing: >> ERROR: read-only property must be set before any query > > I think what we need here is two messages, this one and a similar > one that starts with "read-write property...". Done. I started out by

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-20 Thread Kevin Grittner
> Robert Haas wrote: > Jeff Janes wrote: >> I found the following message somewhat confusing: >> ERROR: read-only property must be set before any query > > I think what we need here is two messages, this one and a similar one > that starts with "read-write property...". > >> When a subtransacti

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-20 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Attached is a rebased roll-up of the 3 and 3a patches from last >> month. > do you have a link to previous discussion? http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg00582.php That thread seems to break, but if you look at the reference

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > I found the following message somewhat confusing: > ERROR:  read-only property must be set before any query I think what we need here is two messages, this one and a similar one that starts with "read-write property...". > When a subtransactio

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Attached is a rebased roll-up of the 3 and 3a patches from last month. Sorry to be a dweeb, but do you have a link to previous discussion? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Se

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-17 Thread Kevin Grittner
Jeff Janes wrote: > A review: Thanks! Very thorough! > None of the issues I raise above are severe. Does that mean I > should change the status to "ready for committer"? I see that notion was endorsed by Robert, so I'll leave it alone for now. If a committer asks me to do something about

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > None of the issues I raise above are severe.  Does that mean I should > change the status to "ready for committer"? Sounds right to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via p

Re: [HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-16 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Attached is a rebased roll-up of the 3 and 3a patches from last month. > > -Kevin Hi Kevin, A review: The main motivation for the patch is to allow future optimization of read-only transactions, by preventing them from changing back to re

[HACKERS] READ ONLY fixes

2011-01-10 Thread Kevin Grittner
Attached is a rebased roll-up of the 3 and 3a patches from last month. -Kevin --- a/src/backend/commands/variable.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/variable.c @@ -544,29 +544,72 @@ show_log_timezone(void) /* + * SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY and SET TRANSACTION READ WRITE + * + * These should be tra