On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 6:14 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, for an ordinary transaction, rollback implies an explicit user > action, but an abort could either be an explicit user action (ABORT; > or ROLLBACK;) or an error. I agree that calling that case "abort" > rather than "rollback" is better. However, the situation is a bit > different for a prepared transaction: no error can prevent such a > transaction from being committed. That is the whole point of being > able to prepare transactions. So it is not unreasonable to think of > use "rollback" rather than "abort" for prepared transactions, but I > think it would be wrong in other cases. On the other hand, using > "abort" for all the cases also doesn't seem bad to me. It's true that > there is no ABORT PREPARED command at the SQL level, but I don't think > that is very important. I don't feel wrong saying that ROLLBACK > PREPARED causes a transaction abort. > So, as I understand you don't object to renaming the callback APIs for ROLLBACK PREPARED transactions to "rollback_prepared_cb" but keeping the "stream_abort" as such. This was what I was planning on doing. I was just writing this up, so wanted to confirm. regards, Ajin Cherian Fujitsu Australia
