Re: Read Uncommitted
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Read Uncommitted |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANP8+jJKQBRepyL1uK2YEAL=R-w1jbzSsj4+6zEBviqeZUoP9g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Read Uncommitted (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Read Uncommitted
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 19:29, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> 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.
So the consensus is for a more-specifically named facility.
I was aiming for something that would allow general SELECTs to run with a snapshot that can see uncommitted xacts, so making it a SRF wouldn't really allow that.
Not really sure where to go with the UI for this.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: