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

From Greg Nancarrow
Subject Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date
Msg-id CAJcOf-eGCg8s+tT_Mo5xKksAhA==1QAH_Sj7SqBotHQhwapdEw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 2:02 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please find attached the latest patch set v100*
>
> v99-0002 --> v100-0001
>

A few minor comments:

(1) doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml

In the following description, is the word "large" really needed? Also
"the message ... for a ... message" sounds a bit odd, as does
"two-phase prepare".

What about the following:

BEFORE:
+                Identifies the message as a two-phase prepare for a
large in-progress transaction message.
AFTER:
+                Identifies the message as a prepare for an
in-progress two-phase transaction.

(2) src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c

Similar format comment, but one uses a full-stop and the other
doesn't, looks a bit odd, since the lines are near each other.

* 1. Replay all the spooled operations - Similar code as for

* 2. Mark the transaction as prepared. - Similar code as for

(3) src/test/subscription/t/023_twophase_stream.pl

Shouldn't the following comment mention, for example, "with streaming"
or something to that effect?

# logical replication of 2PC test


Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix around conn_duration in pgbench
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Use generation context to speed up tuplesorts