On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:50 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I went through this patch another time, and made some minor > adjustments. Now it looks good, I'm going to push it if no > objections. >
I have a question related to usability, if the regular reads (say a Select statement or reads via function/procedure) need a similar guarantee to see the changes on standby then do they also always need to first do something like "BEGIN AFTER '0/3F0FF791' WITHIN 1000;"? Or in other words, shouldn't we think of something for implicit transactions? In general, it seems this patch has been stuck for a long time on the decision to choose an appropriate UI (syntax), and we thought of moving it further so that the other parts of the patch can be reviewed/discussed. So, I feel before pushing this we should see comments from a few (at least two) other senior members who earlier shared their opinion on the syntax. I know we don't have much time left but OTOH pushing such a change (where we didn't have a consensus on syntax) without much discussion at this point of time could lead to discussions after commit. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
