David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:35:12AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> What is the use case for a READ ONLY transaction? > It would be handy for things like pgpool and Continuent, which could > reliably distinguish up front the difference between a transaction > that can write and one that can safely be sliced up and dispatched to > read-only databases. I don't think that works for PG's interpretation of READ ONLY, though. IIRC we let a "read only" transaction create and modify temp tables. regards, tom lane
