Hi Sawada-San. Some review comments for patch v13-0002.
====== I think the v12 ambiguity of RBTXN_PREPARE versus RBTXN_SENT_PREPARE was mostly addressed already by the improved comments for the macros in patch 0001. Meanwhile, patch v13-0002 says it is renaming constants for better consistency, but I don't think it went far enough. For example, better name consistency would be achieved by changing *all* of the constants related to prepared transactions: #define RBTXN_IS_PREPARED 0x0040 #define RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SKIPPED 0x0080 #define RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SENT 0x0200 where: RBTXN_IS_PREPARED. This means it's a prepared transaction. (but we can't tell from this if it is skipped or sent). RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SKIPPED. This means it's a prepared transaction (RBTXN_IS_PREPARED) and it's being skipped. RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SENT. This means it's a prepared transaction (RBTXN_IS_PREPARED) and we've sent it. ~ A note about RBTXN_IS_PREPARED. Since all of these constants are clearly about transactions (e.g. "TXN" in prefix "RBTXN_"), I felt patch 0002 calling this RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_TXN just seemed like adding a redundant _TXN. e.g. we don't say RBTXN_IS_COMMITTED_TXN etc. ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
