Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
От | Greg Nancarrow |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJcOf-eGCg8s+tT_Mo5xKksAhA==1QAH_Sj7SqBotHQhwapdEw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 2:02 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please find attached the latest patch set v100* > > v99-0002 --> v100-0001 > A few minor comments: (1) doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml In the following description, is the word "large" really needed? Also "the message ... for a ... message" sounds a bit odd, as does "two-phase prepare". What about the following: BEFORE: + Identifies the message as a two-phase prepare for a large in-progress transaction message. AFTER: + Identifies the message as a prepare for an in-progress two-phase transaction. (2) src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c Similar format comment, but one uses a full-stop and the other doesn't, looks a bit odd, since the lines are near each other. * 1. Replay all the spooled operations - Similar code as for * 2. Mark the transaction as prepared. - Similar code as for (3) src/test/subscription/t/023_twophase_stream.pl Shouldn't the following comment mention, for example, "with streaming" or something to that effect? # logical replication of 2PC test Regards, Greg Nancarrow Fujitsu Australia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: