Re: Prevent writes on large objects in read-only transactions
От | Yugo NAGATA |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Prevent writes on large objects in read-only transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20220530174418.9a3e508d1d1a5e42f7958da7@sraoss.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Prevent writes on large objects in read-only transactions (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Prevent writes on large objects in read-only transactions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 28 May 2022 18:00:54 +0900 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 03:30:28PM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote: > > Currently, lo_creat(e), lo_import, lo_unlink, lowrite, lo_put, > > and lo_from_bytea are allowed even in read-only transactions. > > By using them, pg_largeobject and pg_largeobject_metatable can > > be modified in read-only transactions and the effect remains > > after the transaction finished. Is it unacceptable behaviours, > > isn't it? > > Well, there is an actual risk to break applications that have worked > until now for a behavior that has existed for years with zero > complaints on the matter, so I would leave that alone. Saying that, I > don't really disagree with improving the error messages a bit if we > are in recovery. Thank you for your comment. I am fine with leaving the behaviour in read-only transactions as is if anyone don't complain and there are no risks. As to the error messages during recovery, I think it is better to improve it, because the current messages are emitted by elog() and it seems to imply they are internal errors that we don't expected. I attached a updated patch for it. Regards, Yugo Nagata -- Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: