On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:11 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@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. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
