On 11/24/19 11:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Ok.
--
Mark Dilger
