On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 11:19 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 4:43 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > I agree that doing something is better than nothing. The proposed > idea, having RBTXN_IS_PREPARED prefix for all related flags, improves > the consistency in terms of names, but I'm not sure this is the right > direction. For example, RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SKIPPED is quite confusing > to me. I think this name implies "this is a prepared transaction but > is skipped", but I don't think it conveys the meaning well. In > addition to that, if we add RBTXN_IS_PREPARED flag also for skipped > prepared transactions, we would end up with doing like: > > txn->txn_flags |= (RBTXN_IS_PREPARED | RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SKIPPED); > > Which seems quite redundant. It makes more sense to me to do like: > > txn->txn_flags |= (RBTXN_IS_PREPARED | RBTXN_SKIPPED_PREPARE); > > I'd like to avoid a situation like where we rename these names just > for better consistency in terms of names and later rename them to > better names for other reasons again and again. >
Sounds reasonable. We agree with just changing RBTXN_PREPARE to RBTXN_IS_PREPARED and its corresponding macro. The next step is to update the patch to reflect the same. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
