On 2021/09/22 0:16, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for the review! Barring any objection, I will commit the patch.
Pushed. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
On 2021/09/17 15:33, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:28 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/09/17 11:40, Zhihong Yu wrote:
+ goto fail; /* Trouble clearing prepared statements */
The label fail can be removed. Under the above condition,
entry->changing_xa
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 8:28 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On 2021/09/17 11:40, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > + goto fail; /* Trouble clearing prepared statements */
> >
> > The label fail can be removed. Under the above condition,
> > entry->changing_xact_state is still true. You can dir
On 2021/09/17 11:40, Zhihong Yu wrote:
+ goto fail; /* Trouble clearing prepared statements */
The label fail can be removed. Under the above condition,
entry->changing_xact_state is still true. You can directly return.
Thanks for the review! Yes, you're right. Attached
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 7:31 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In postgres_fdw, pgfdw_xact_callback() and pgfdw_subxact_callback() do
> almost the same thing to rollback remote toplevel- and sub-transaction.
> But their such rollback logics are implemented separately and
> in different way. Which w
Hi,
In postgres_fdw, pgfdw_xact_callback() and pgfdw_subxact_callback() do
almost the same thing to rollback remote toplevel- and sub-transaction.
But their such rollback logics are implemented separately and
in different way. Which would decrease the readability and maintainability,
I think. So
