On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 5:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >
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
