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

From vignesh C
Subject Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date
Msg-id CALDaNm3z1Xp-BKh9yYS6ux2U8em05Dg+9LawRSSVGgrCBJ5vCQ@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
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:51 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 1:31 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > 4) Should we change this to "The end LSN of the prepared transaction"
> > just to avoid any confusion of it meaning commit/rollback.
> > +<varlistentry>
> > +<term>Int64</term>
> > +<listitem><para>
> > +                The end LSN of the transaction.
> > +</para></listitem>
> > +</varlistentry>
> >
>
> Can you please provide more details so I can be sure of the context of
> this feedback, e.g. there are multiple places that match that patch
> fragment provided. So was this suggestion to change all of them ( 'b',
> 'P', 'K' , 'r'  of patch 0001; and also 'p' of patch 0002) ?

My suggestion was for all of them.

Regards,
Vignesh



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Another modest proposal for reducing CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS runtime