On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:53 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 11:19 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 4:43 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > My thoughts are that any consistency improvement is a step in the > > > right direction so even "don't increase the consistency much" is still > > > better than nothing. > > > > I agree that doing something is better than nothing. The proposed > > idea, having RBTXN_IS_PREPARED prefix for all related flags, improves > > the consistency in terms of names, but I'm not sure this is the right > > direction. For example, RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SKIPPED is quite confusing > > to me. I think this name implies "this is a prepared transaction but > > is skipped", but I don't think it conveys the meaning well. In > > addition to that, if we add RBTXN_IS_PREPARED flag also for skipped > > prepared transactions, we would end up with doing like: > > > > txn->txn_flags |= (RBTXN_IS_PREPARED | RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SKIPPED); > > > > Which seems quite redundant. It makes more sense to me to do like: > > > > txn->txn_flags |= (RBTXN_IS_PREPARED | RBTXN_SKIPPED_PREPARE); > > > > I'd like to avoid a situation like where we rename these names just > > for better consistency in terms of names and later rename them to > > better names for other reasons again and again. > > > > Sounds reasonable. We agree with just changing RBTXN_PREPARE to > RBTXN_IS_PREPARED and its corresponding macro. The next step is to > update the patch to reflect the same.
Right. I've attached the updated patches. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
v15-0001-Skip-logical-decoding-of-already-aborted-transac.patch
Description: Binary data
v15-0002-Rename-RBTXN_PREPARE-to-RBTXN_IS_PREPARE-for-bet.patch
Description: Binary data
