On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 9:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:28 PM Ajin Cherian <itsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, introducing an additional boolean variable for this doesn't seem > like a good idea neither the other alternative suggested by you. How > about if we change the comment to make it clear. How about: "If output > plugin supports two-phase commits and doesn't skip the transaction at > prepare time then we don't need to decode the transaction data at > commit prepared time as it would have already been decoded at prepare > time."? Yes, that works for me. regards, Ajin Cherian Fujitsu Australia
