> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:14:11PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I would just tweak the comment block at the top of what's being
> > changed, as per the attached. Please let me know if there are any
> > objections.
>
> And applied as of 710796f.
Thanks for your comment and commit.
I've
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 03:14:11PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I would just tweak the comment block at the top of what's being
> changed, as per the attached. Please let me know if there are any
> objections.
And applied as of 710796f.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 09:29:48AM +, liuhuail...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> There was a problem with the before patch when testing.
> So resubmit it.
FWIW, I see no problems with patch version 1 or 2, as long as you
apply patch version 1 with a command like patch -p2. One thing of
patch 2 is
Hi, tom
> >Hmmm, yeah, I think you're right. It probably doesn't make a big difference
> >in
> the real world --- anyone who's dependent on the performance of 2PC rollbaxks
> is Doing It Wrong.
> > But we'd have already done LocalExecuteInvalidationMessage when getting
> out of the prepared
.
So, I think it is better to optimize the code.
Here is the patch.
Regards, liuhl
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 1:36 AM
To: Liu, Huailing/刘 怀玲
Cc: pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SI messages sent when excuting ROLLBACK PREPARED command
"liu
"liuhuail...@fujitsu.com" writes:
> So, I think we needn't send SI messags when rollbacking the two-phase
> transaction.
> Or Does it has something special because of two-phase transaction?
Hmmm, yeah, I think you're right. It probably doesn't make a big
difference in the real world --- anyone
