Thread: Re: PostgreSQL 15 minor fixes in protocol.sgml
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:00:20PM +0300, Ekaterina Kiryanova wrote: > > > Another point worth mentioning is that only this file contains the phrase > > "two-phase transaction". I believe that "two-phase commit transaction" or > > "transaction prepared for two-phase commit" depending on the situation would > > be better wording. > > "Prepare for two-phase commit" may be clearer? > I think we can use just "Prepared transaction" instead. So, the message "The user defined GID of the two-phase transaction." can be changed to "The user defined GID of the prepared transaction.". Similarly, the message "Identifies the message as a two-phase prepared transaction message." could be changed to: "Identifies the message as a prepared transaction message." > > And finally, could you please clarify this part? > > -- The end LSN of the prepare transaction. > > Is it a typo of "prepared transaction"? I think in this case it should be a "prepared transaction". Thanks for the report and Thanks Michael for including me. I am just redirecting it to -hackers so that others involved in this feature also can share their views. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 1:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:00:20PM +0300, Ekaterina Kiryanova wrote: > > > > > Another point worth mentioning is that only this file contains the phrase > > > "two-phase transaction". I believe that "two-phase commit transaction" or > > > "transaction prepared for two-phase commit" depending on the situation would > > > be better wording. > > > > "Prepare for two-phase commit" may be clearer? > > > > I think we can use just "Prepared transaction" instead. So, the > message "The user defined GID of the two-phase transaction." can be > changed to "The user defined GID of the prepared transaction.". > Similarly, the message "Identifies the message as a two-phase prepared > transaction message." could be changed to: "Identifies the message as > a prepared transaction message." > > > > And finally, could you please clarify this part? > > > -- The end LSN of the prepare transaction. > > > Is it a typo of "prepared transaction"? > > I think in this case it should be a "prepared transaction". > > > Thanks for the report and Thanks Michael for including me. I am just > redirecting it to -hackers so that others involved in this feature > also can share their views. > PSA a patch to modify the descriptions as suggested by Amit. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
Attachment
On 2022-Aug-03, Amit Kapila wrote: > Thanks for the report and Thanks Michael for including me. I am just > redirecting it to -hackers so that others involved in this feature > also can share their views. I'm sorry, but our policy is that crossposts are not allowed. I think this policy is bad, precisely because it prevents legitimate cases like this one; but it is what it is. I think we should change the policy, not back to allow indiscriminate cross-posting, but to allow some limited form of it. For example I think pg-bugs+pg-hackers and pg-docs+pg-hackers should be allowed combinations. Just saying. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:23 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2022-Aug-03, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > Thanks for the report and Thanks Michael for including me. I am just > > redirecting it to -hackers so that others involved in this feature > > also can share their views. > > I'm sorry, but our policy is that crossposts are not allowed. I think > this policy is bad, precisely because it prevents legitimate cases like > this one; but it is what it is. > > I think we should change the policy, not back to allow indiscriminate > cross-posting, but to allow some limited form of it. For example I > think pg-bugs+pg-hackers and pg-docs+pg-hackers should be allowed > combinations. Just saying. > +1. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.