Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions?

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
>> It's not intended to be a security measure, and I would strongly
>> resist any attempt to make it so along the lines you propose.

> Intended or not, it does work.

No, you just haven't thought of a way to get around it yet.  When you do
think of one, you'll be wanting us to contort the GUC system to plug the
loophole.  We've already got a horrid mess in there for the LOG_XXX
variables, and I don't want to add more.

I'm not objecting to the idea of being able to make users read-only.
I'm objecting to using GUC for it.  Send in a patch that, say, adds a
bool column to pg_shadow, and I'll be happy.

			regards, tom lane