Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?