| From: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-11-13 12:26:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAFPTHDZHLUJVBvy2ms3=x=sQUE2_Ro__n0z=9AhpgR=38+Fk3w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 9:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:28 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hmm, introducing an additional boolean variable for this doesn't seem
> like a good idea neither the other alternative suggested by you. How
> about if we change the comment to make it clear. How about: "If output
> plugin supports two-phase commits and doesn't skip the transaction at
> prepare time then we don't need to decode the transaction data at
> commit prepared time as it would have already been decoded at prepare
> time."?
Yes, that works for me.
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-11-13 12:30:29 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-11-13 12:15:15 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |