Tatsuo Ishii <is...@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
>> Right, but what I think it is comparing is a read-only transaction
>> on the master and a transaction on the standby. The former can do
>> nextval() on temp sequences, the latter can't.
> But we cannot create temp sequences on stanbys in the first place.
> Still do you think there's value to refer to nextval() on temp
> sequences here?
You're right that the statement is irrelevant in the context of what
a standby can or can't do, but what I'm worried about is that someone
will read it and believe that it represents the whole truth about
what read-only master transactions can do. The previous wording was
also irrelevant to the context of a standby, and yet this whole thread
exists because somebody complained that it's an inaccurate description
of the restrictions on such a master transaction. Well, it's still
inaccurate.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
