Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov 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
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I found the following message somewhat confusing:
ERROR: read-only property must be set before any query
I think what we need
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
got
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov 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
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com 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
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 references and
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 subtransaction has set
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 any
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov 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
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com 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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
