On E, 2005-05-09 at 20:21 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > As I mentioned before, I wanted to the read-only database mode.
> > It is the per-database state.
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00540.php
> >
> > However, if it is not provided, we have to find alternati
> As I mentioned before, I wanted to the read-only database mode.
> It is the per-database state.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00540.php
>
> However, if it is not provided, we have to find alternative way
> to get our purpose.
>
> So I'm
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>It's come up a few times ... more than an un-overridable read-only mode
>>anyway. Also, I should think that those who want a secure read-only
>>mode want it enforced selectively --- for instance, assuredly read-only
>>for some users but not others. I can hardly
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Having removed our security for not allowing override of things like
> log_statement, it seems we need a more general capability for
> controlling how something can be set that no one can change.
The initial implementation was definitely pretty broken, but I agree
we shoul
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The ability to have PGDATA in read-only media (like CDs) has been
> requested a lot of times, hasn't it?
It's come up a few times ... more than an un-overridable read-only mode
anyway. Also, I should think that those who want a secure read-only
mode wa
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:13:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> > >
> > > Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> > > > I wanted to make the postmaster read-only, and found
> > > > "default_transaction_read_only" option, but it can be overwritten.
> > >
> >
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The ability to have PGDATA in read-only media (like CDs) has been
> > requested a lot of times, hasn't it?
>
> It's come up a few times ... more than an un-overridable read-only mode
> anyway. Also, I should think that those who wan
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:13:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> >
> > Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> > > I wanted to make the postmaster read-only, and found
> > > "default_transaction_read_only" option, but it can be overwritten.
> >
> > I mean it can be overridden by the u
Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>
> Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> > I wanted to make the postmaster read-only, and found
> > "default_transaction_read_only" option, but it can be overwritten.
>
> I mean it can be overridden by the user. I don't want that.
I understand, but we haven't gotten enough requests
Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> I wanted to make the postmaster read-only, and found
> "default_transaction_read_only" option, but it can be overwritten.
I mean it can be overridden by the user. I don't want that.
--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenSource Developme
> But the second is only a subset of the first, no? So why not just
> implement the first? Put another way, why do you think the second is
> necessary?
Because there is "default_transaction_read_only" option and
implementation.
My implementation is an extension of the exist
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:02:07AM +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> I think the read-only has two meanings for the user.
>
> First is the internal state. XID, OID or something like that.
> In these cases, the internal state mustn't be changed.
> Some users will need the read-only for internal stat
Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the read-only has two meanings for the user.
> First is the internal state. XID, OID or something like that.
> In these cases, the internal state mustn't be changed.
> Some users will need the read-only for internal state.
> Second is read-onl
I think the read-only has two meanings for the user.
First is the internal state. XID, OID or something like that.
In these cases, the internal state mustn't be changed.
Some users will need the read-only for internal state.
Second is read-only for the user data contents.
In
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > It seems server_read_only is the same as default_transaction_read_only
> > except it can't be changed.
>
> I thought the TODO item was for a low-level read-only option, suitable
> for trying to look at a corrupted database or run off a read-only volume.
Bruce Momjian writes:
> It seems server_read_only is the same as default_transaction_read_only
> except it can't be changed.
I thought the TODO item was for a low-level read-only option, suitable
for trying to look at a corrupted database or run off a read-only volume.
This is very far from being
Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'd view this as a postmaster state that propagates to backends.
> > Probably you'd enable it by means of a postmaster option, and the
> > only way to get out of it is to shut down and restart the postmaster
> > without the option.
>
> I've created
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd view this as a postmaster state that propagates to backends.
> Probably you'd enable it by means of a postmaster option, and the
> only way to get out of it is to shut down and restart the postmaster
> without the option.
I've created a patch to make a p
18 matches
Mail list logo
