| From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
| Date: | 2021-05-10 06:53:37 |
| Message-ID: | CALDaNm3z1Xp-BKh9yYS6ux2U8em05Dg+9LawRSSVGgrCBJ5vCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:51 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 1:31 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > 4) Should we change this to "The end LSN of the prepared transaction"
> > just to avoid any confusion of it meaning commit/rollback.
> > +<varlistentry>
> > +<term>Int64</term>
> > +<listitem><para>
> > + The end LSN of the transaction.
> > +</para></listitem>
> > +</varlistentry>
> >
>
> Can you please provide more details so I can be sure of the context of
> this feedback, e.g. there are multiple places that match that patch
> fragment provided. So was this suggestion to change all of them ( 'b',
> 'P', 'K' , 'r' of patch 0001; and also 'p' of patch 0002) ?
My suggestion was for all of them.
Regards,
Vignesh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-05-10 06:57:48 | Re: Another modest proposal for reducing CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS runtime |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-05-10 06:52:15 | Re: Some doubious error messages and comments |