On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:55 AM Markus Wanner
<markus.wanner@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> 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."
>
Okay, Changed the patch accordingly.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.