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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1J0VRNckL5_LB+tA1dZmP69HjPZ7qYXf2PyvAfuUGMDKg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:27 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why did you make a change in stream_start API? I think it should be
> > *_change and *_truncate APIs because the concurrent abort can happen
> > while decoding any intermediate change. If you agree then you can
> > probably take that code into a separate function and call it from the
> > respective APIs.
> >
> Patch 0001:
> Updated this from stream_start to stream_change. I haven't updated
> *_truncate as the test case written for this does not include a
> truncate.
>

I think the same check should be there in truncate as well to make the
APIs consistent and also one can use it for writing another test that
has a truncate operation.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ajin Cherian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?