On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 03:41, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:58:05AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > What I've posted is the merged patch, i.e. your latest patch, plus
> > changes to RELEASE SAVEPOINT from you on Oct 16, plus changes based on
> > the later comments from Robert and I.
>
> Thanks. I have two changes to your patch. First, I agree "destroy" is
> the wrong word for this, but I don't think "subcommit" is good, for
> three reasons:
>
> 1. Release merges the non-aborted changes into the previous transaction
> _and_ frees their resources --- "subcommit" doesn't have both meanings,
> which I think means if we need a single word, we should use "release"
> and later define what that means.
>
> 2. The "subcommit" concept doesn't closely match the user-visible
> behavior, even though we use subtransactions to accomplish this. Release
> is more of a rollup/merge into the previously-active
> transaction/savepoint.
>
> 3. "subcommit" is an implementation detail that I don't think we should
> expose to users in the manual pages.
I don't understand this - you seem to be presuming that "subcommit"
means something different and then objecting to that difference.
For me, "Subcommit" exactly matches what is happening because the code
comments and details already use Subcommit in exactly this way.
The main purpose of this patch is to talk about what is happening
using the same language as we do in the code. The gap between the code
and the docs isn't helping anyone.
> I adjusted the first paragraph of RELEASE SAVEPOINT to highlight the
> above issues. My original patch had similar wording.
>
> The first attachment shows my changes to your patch, and the second
> attachment is my full patch.
OK, though this makes the patch tester look like this doesn't apply.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
