Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gmBhV-0007WV-02 for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:07:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gmBhT-0002zP-JI for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:07:47 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gmBhT-0002vk-AV for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:07:47 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gmBhO-0003xd-Nb for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:07:45 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x0N67VoX004211; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 01:07:31 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Pavlo Golub , pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: `transaction_read_only` GUC undocumented In-reply-to: <20190123055440.GI3873@paquier.xyz> References: <20190123002536.GC3873@paquier.xyz> <18fa8fbf-f5a3-4e4b-b751-8b9da58c117c@email.android.com> <20190123055440.GI3873@paquier.xyz> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:54:40 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4209.1548223651.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 01:07:31 -0500 Message-ID: <4210.1548223651@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > transaction_read_only is listed in src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c, so we > could put a description close to default_transaction_read_only in > config.sgml, except that transaction_read_only sets the current > transaction's read-only status. Do we really want to document that? It's not the standard-approved way of making a transaction read-only. regards, tom lane