Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 02:03:27PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Eyeballing 0001, it has a few problems.
>
> 1. It's under-parenthesizing the txn argument of the macros.
>
> 2. the "has"/"is" macro definitions don't return booleans -- see
> fce4609d5e5b.
>
> 3. the remainder of this no longer makes sense:
>
>     /* Do we know this is a subxact?  Xid of top-level txn if so */
> -   bool        is_known_as_subxact;
>     TransactionId toplevel_xid;
>
> I suggest to fix the comment, and also improve the comment next to the
> macro that tests this flag.
>
>
> (4. the macro names are ugly.)

This is an old thread, and the latest review is very recent.  So I am
moving the patch to next CF, waiting on author.
--
Michael