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@pgmasters.net