| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Read Uncommitted |
| Date: | 2019-12-18 19:29:22 |
| Message-ID: | d04e8194-0090-a12f-7a31-b1e1e26b2777@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/12/2019 20:46, Mark Dilger wrote:
> On 12/18/19 10:06 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Just consider this part of the recovery toolkit.
>
> In that case, don't call it "read uncommitted". Call it some other
> thing entirely. Users coming from other databases may request
> "read uncommitted" isolation expecting something that works.
> Currently, that gets promoted to "read committed" and works. After
> your change, that simply breaks and gives them an error.
I agree that if we have a user-exposed READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level,
it shouldn't be just a recovery tool. For a recovery tool, I think a
set-returning function as part of contrib/pageinspect, for example,
would be more appropriate. Then it could also try to be more defensive
against corrupt pages, and be superuser-only.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rahila Syed | 2019-12-18 19:31:52 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-18 19:06:38 | Re: inherits clause for CREATE TYPE? - |