Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1K53eu7wdhHANPkVzidrUPVVJTbqHHsNz5sUhzRBYZfYw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:11 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.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.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Issue with markers in isolation tester? Or not?
Next
From: Richard Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: Eager aggregation, take 3