| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions |
| Date: | 2025-01-15 06:49:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K53eu7wdhHANPkVzidrUPVVJTbqHHsNz5sUhzRBYZfYw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:11 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> It seems we agreed on RBTXN_IS_PREPARED and rbtxn_is_prepared().
> Adding 'IS' seems to clarify the transaction having this flag *is* a
> prepared transaction. Both other two constants RBTXN_SENT_PREAPRE and
> RBTXN_SKIPPED_PREPARE seem not bad to me.
>
Agreed.
> I find that the proposed
> names don't increase the consistency much. Thoughts?
>
I also think so.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2025-01-15 06:57:26 | Re: [PATCH] Hex-coding optimizations using SVE on ARM. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-01-15 06:44:12 | Re: Issue with markers in isolation tester? Or not? |