Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 5:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:11 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It seems we agreed on RBTXN_IS_PREPARED and rbtxn_is_prepared().
> > Adding 'IS' seems to clarify the transaction having this flag *is* a
> > prepared transaction. Both other two constants RBTXN_SENT_PREAPRE and
> > RBTXN_SKIPPED_PREPARE seem not bad to me.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I find that the proposed
> > names don't increase the consistency much. Thoughts?
> >
>
> I also think so.
>

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.

But if I am outvoted that's OK. It is not a big deal.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia