Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
От | vignesh C |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CALDaNm3z1Xp-BKh9yYS6ux2U8em05Dg+9LawRSSVGgrCBJ5vCQ@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 Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:51 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 1:31 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 4) Should we change this to "The end LSN of the prepared transaction" > > just to avoid any confusion of it meaning commit/rollback. > > +<varlistentry> > > +<term>Int64</term> > > +<listitem><para> > > + The end LSN of the transaction. > > +</para></listitem> > > +</varlistentry> > > > > Can you please provide more details so I can be sure of the context of > this feedback, e.g. there are multiple places that match that patch > fragment provided. So was this suggestion to change all of them ( 'b', > 'P', 'K' , 'r' of patch 0001; and also 'p' of patch 0002) ? My suggestion was for all of them. Regards, Vignesh
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: