On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 03:42:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. Am I missing something then? test=> BEGIN READ ONLY; BEGIN test=> CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE foo (x integer); ERROR: transaction is read-only -- Michael Fuhr
