| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, 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 23:46:46 |
| Message-ID: | d4a4347d-ede1-dc9b-67c1-7d653b98935f@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/18/19 2:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 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.
+1.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2019-12-19 00:07:16 | Re: Read Uncommitted |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-18 22:22:06 | Re: remove unnecessary table_open/close from makeArrayTypeName |