Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 11/24/19 10:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After sleeping on it, I'm not really happy with what I did in
>> PrepareTransaction (that is, invent a separate PrePrepare_Notify
>> function). The idea was to keep that looking parallel to what
>> CommitTransaction does, and preserve infrastructure against the
>> day that somebody gets motivated to allow LISTEN or NOTIFY in
>> a prepared transaction. But on second thought, what would surely
>> happen when that feature gets added is just that AtPrepare_Notify
>> would serialize the pending LISTEN/NOTIFY actions into the 2PC
>> state file. There wouldn't be any need for PrePrepare_Notify,
>> so there's no point in introducing that. I'll just move the
>> comment saying that nothing has to happen at that point for NOTIFY.
> I assumed you had factored it out in anticipation of supporting notify
> here in the future. If you want to backtrack that decision and leave it
> inline, you would still keep the test rather than just a comment, right?
No, there wouldn't be any error condition; that's just needed because the
feature isn't implemented yet. So I'll leave that alone; the only thing
that needs to happen now in the PREPARE code path is to adjust the one
comment.
regards, tom lane
