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

From Ajin Cherian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date
Msg-id CAFPTHDanJ0g+HWm1Hm_X13o-B=Q-QNAUwg2cuibsnuH5b4FR3g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:35 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I think that would be better. How about if name the new variable
> as cleanup_prepared?

I haven't added a new flag to indicate that the prepare was cleaned
up, as that wasn' really necessary. Instead I used a new function to
do partial cleanup to do whatever was not done in the truncate. If you
think, using a flag and doing special handling in
ReorderBufferCleanupTXN was a better idea, let me know.

regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Andrey M. Borodin"
Date:
Subject: Re: Concurrency issue in pg_rewind
Next
From: Andy Fan
Date:
Subject: Re: Dynamic gathering the values for seq_page_cost/xxx_cost