On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 19:29, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@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. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise
