Re: [HACKERS] read-only database

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> 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 should try again.

I think that transaction_read_only and default_transaction_read_only
are a special case: they embody our implementation of SQL-spec-mandated
features (SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY and friends), and so any messing
about with them has to surmount the objection that it'll be breaking
spec-mandated behavior. But the other things we wanted this for in
the past, such as logging control, were outside the scope of the spec
AFAIR.

regards, tom lane