On 31.03.21 06:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have slightly adjusted the comments, docs, and commit message. What
> do you think about the attached?
Thank you both, Amit and Ajin. This looks good to me.
Only one minor gripe:
> + a prepared transaction with incomplete changes, in which case the
> + <literal>concurrent_abort</literal> field of the passed
> + <literal>ReorderBufferTXN</literal> struct is set. This is done so that
> + eventually when the <command>ROLLBACK PREPARED</command> is decoded, there
> + is a corresponding prepared transaction with a matching gid.
The last sentences there now seems to relate to just the setting of
"concurrent_abort", rather than the whole reason to invoke the
prepare_cb. And the reference to the "gid" is a bit lost. Maybe:
"Thus even in case of a concurrent abort, enough information is
provided to the output plugin for it to properly deal with the
<command>ROLLBACK PREPARED</command> once that is decoded."
Alternatively, state that the gid is otherwise missing earlier in the
docs (similar to how the commit message describes it).
Regards
Markus