Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date: 2020-11-19 06:07:22
Message-ID: CAA4eK1J0VRNckL5_LB+tA1dZmP69HjPZ7qYXf2PyvAfuUGMDKg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:27 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Why did you make a change in stream_start API? I think it should be
> > *_change and *_truncate APIs because the concurrent abort can happen
> > while decoding any intermediate change. If you agree then you can
> > probably take that code into a separate function and call it from the
> > respective APIs.
> >
> Patch 0001:
> Updated this from stream_start to stream_change. I haven't updated
> *_truncate as the test case written for this does not include a
> truncate.
>

I think the same check should be there in truncate as well to make the
APIs consistent and also one can use it for writing another test that
has a truncate operation.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-11-19 06:16:48 Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Previous Message Ajin Cherian 2020-11-19 05:57:10 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions