Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date
Msg-id 201901251703.r7idekybsep2@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Nikhil Sontakke <nikhils@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Eyeballing 0001, it has a few problems.

1. It's under-parenthesizing the txn argument of the macros.

2. the "has"/"is" macro definitions don't return booleans -- see
fce4609d5e5b.

3. the remainder of this no longer makes sense:

    /* Do we know this is a subxact?  Xid of top-level txn if so */
-   bool        is_known_as_subxact;
    TransactionId toplevel_xid;

I suggest to fix the comment, and also improve the comment next to the
macro that tests this flag.


(4. the macro names are ugly.)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Use zero for nullness estimates of system attributes
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb