On 11/24/19 11:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 11/24/19 10:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> After sleeping on it, I'm not really happy with what I did in
>>> PrepareTransaction (that is, invent a separate PrePrepare_Notify
>>> function). The idea was to keep that looking parallel to what
>>> CommitTransaction does, and preserve infrastructure against the
>>> day that somebody gets motivated to allow LISTEN or NOTIFY in
>>> a prepared transaction. But on second thought, what would surely
>>> happen when that feature gets added is just that AtPrepare_Notify
>>> would serialize the pending LISTEN/NOTIFY actions into the 2PC
>>> state file. There wouldn't be any need for PrePrepare_Notify,
>>> so there's no point in introducing that. I'll just move the
>>> comment saying that nothing has to happen at that point for NOTIFY.
>
>> I assumed you had factored it out in anticipation of supporting notify
>> here in the future. If you want to backtrack that decision and leave it
>> inline, you would still keep the test rather than just a comment, right?
>
> No, there wouldn't be any error condition; that's just needed because the
> feature isn't implemented yet. So I'll leave that alone; the only thing
> that needs to happen now in the PREPARE code path is to adjust the one
> comment.
Ok.
--
Mark Dilger
