I see, thanks for that!
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:28:32 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Evans wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:30:46 AM UTC-7, Ian Murray wrote:
>>
>> I tried the same situation in a Postgres, and the error seems slightly
>> different, depending on the command:
>>
>> testdb=> insert into table values ('lorem ipsum');
>> ERROR: cannot execute INSERT in a read-only transaction
>> testdb=> update table set name = 'lorem ipsum';
>> ERROR: cannot execute UPDATE in a read-only transaction
>> testdb=> delete from table;
>> ERROR: cannot execute DELETE in a read-only transaction
>>
>> Hopefully it's simple to consider this scenario as well in the postgres
>> adapter.
>>
>
> Unfortunately not. On PostgreSQL, you can have read only transactions
> without the connection being read only, and those shouldn't be treated as a
> disconnect error:
>
> DB.transaction(:read_only=>true){DB[:bar].insert}
>
> You can use a local patch for that:
>
> def DB.disconnect_error?(e, opts)
> super || e.message =~ /cannot execute (INSERT|UPDATE|DELETE) in a
> read-only transaction/
> end
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sequel-talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
