From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Peter(dot)B(dot)Smith(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <Peter(dot)B(dot)Smith(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Date: | 2020-10-07 19:14:09 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa53qZiRP-5F9X6O1=LzY0-s=UGgxm5TkU--ct_oPP0_w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:24 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > There is a confusing mix of terminology where sometimes things are
> > referred as ROLLBACK/rollback and other times apparently the same
> > operation is referred as ABORT/abort. I do not know the root cause of
> > this mixture. IIUC maybe the internal functions and protocol generally
> > use the term "abort", whereas the SQL syntax is "ROLLBACK"... but
> > where those two terms collide in the middle it gets quite confusing.
> >
> > At least I thought the names of the "callbacks" which get exposed to
> > the user (e.g. in the help) might be better if they would match the
> > SQL.
> > "abort_prepared_cb" --> "rollback_prepared_db"
> >
>
> This suggestion sounds reasonable. I think it is to entertain the case
> where due to error we need to rollback the transaction. I think it is
> better if use 'rollback' terminology in the exposed functions. We
> already have a function with the name stream_abort_cb in the code
> which we also might want to rename but that is a separate thing and we
> can deal it with a separate patch.
So, for an ordinary transaction, rollback implies an explicit user
action, but an abort could either be an explicit user action (ABORT;
or ROLLBACK;) or an error. I agree that calling that case "abort"
rather than "rollback" is better. However, the situation is a bit
different for a prepared transaction: no error can prevent such a
transaction from being committed. That is the whole point of being
able to prepare transactions. So it is not unreasonable to think of
use "rollback" rather than "abort" for prepared transactions, but I
think it would be wrong in other cases. On the other hand, using
"abort" for all the cases also doesn't seem bad to me. It's true that
there is no ABORT PREPARED command at the SQL level, but I don't think
that is very important. I don't feel wrong saying that ROLLBACK
PREPARED causes a transaction abort.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-10-07 19:14:30 | Re: Concurrency issue in pg_rewind |
Previous Message | Emil Iggland | 2020-10-07 19:13:29 | Re: BUG #15858: could not stat file - over 4GB |