On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Thank you Robert and sorry for bothering you with a silly question!
>
> I understand what I did clearly thanks to your attentive indication.
>
> At Mon, 21 Dec 2015 07:50:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
> in
>> >> >> + * lead the client to
Thank you Robert and sorry for bothering you with a silly question!
I understand what I did clearly thanks to your attentive indication.
At Mon, 21 Dec 2015 07:50:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
in
> >> >> + * lead the client to believe that the transaction is aborted, which
> >> No, that's correc
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:44:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
> in
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>> > Hello, I think I found a typo in a comment of syncrep.c.
>> >
>> >> * acknowledge the commit nor raise
Hello,
At Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:44:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > Hello, I think I found a typo in a comment of syncrep.c.
> >
> >> * acknowledge the commit nor raise ERROR or FATAL. The latter would
> >> - * lead the client to
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello, I think I found a typo in a comment of syncrep.c.
>
>> * acknowledge the commit nor raise ERROR or FATAL. The latter would
>> - * lead the client to believe that that the transaction aborted, which
>> * is not true: it's alrea
Hello, I think I found a typo in a comment of syncrep.c.
> * acknowledge the commit nor raise ERROR or FATAL. The latter would
> - * lead the client to believe that that the transaction aborted, which
> * is not true: it's already committed locally. The former is no good
The 'that' looks dup
