Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions

On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 11:19 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 4:43 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > My thoughts are that any consistency improvement is a step in the
> > right direction so even "don't increase the consistency much" is still
> > better than nothing.
>
> I agree that doing something is better than nothing. The proposed
> idea, having RBTXN_IS_PREPARED prefix for all related flags, improves
> the consistency in terms of names, but I'm not sure this is the right
> direction. For example, RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SKIPPED is quite confusing
> to me. I think this name implies "this is a prepared transaction but
> is skipped", but I don't think it conveys the meaning well. In
> addition to that, if we add RBTXN_IS_PREPARED flag also for skipped
> prepared transactions, we would end up with doing like:
>
> txn->txn_flags |= (RBTXN_IS_PREPARED | RBTXN_IS_PREPARED_SKIPPED);
>
> Which seems quite redundant. It makes more sense to me to do like:
>
> txn->txn_flags |= (RBTXN_IS_PREPARED | RBTXN_SKIPPED_PREPARE);
>
> I'd like to avoid a situation like where we rename these names just
> for better consistency in terms of names and later rename them to
> better names for other reasons again and again.
>

Sounds reasonable. We agree with just changing RBTXN_PREPARE to
RBTXN_IS_PREPARED and its corresponding macro. The next step is to
update the patch to reflect the same.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.