Tom Lane writes:
case T_VacuumStmt:
/* No XactReadOnly check since this logically changes no data */
vacuum((VacuumStmt *) parsetree);
break;
Then it'll be hard to miss the need to think about this when adding a
new statement.
Well, I had one
Tom Lane writes:
Where are you planning to check this?
In general, I'm trying to align it like a (self-imposed) permission check.
For the query-like statements I'm looking at ExecCheckRTPerms(). (That
also handles EXECUTE and EXPLAIN most easily.) Utility statements have a
check in
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane writes:
Where are you planning to check this?
In general, I'm trying to align it like a (self-imposed) permission check.
For the query-like statements I'm looking at ExecCheckRTPerms(). (That
also handles EXECUTE and EXPLAIN most easily.)
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would like to implement read-only transactions following the SQL spec,
...
I think it's light-weight and marginally useful.
Light-weight would depend on your intended implementation, I suppose.
Where are you planning to check this?
Also, the fact
