Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2012-12-01 12:14:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It could do with some comments ;-)
> Hehe, yes. Hopefully this version has enough of that.
Hm, maybe too many --- I don't really think it's necessary for utility.c
to provide a redundant explanation of what's happening.
Committed with adjustments --- mainly, the
TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId test was flat out wrong, because it
would accept a parent transaction ID as well as a subcommitted
subtransaction ID. We could safely allow the latter, but I don't think
it's worth the trouble to add another xact.c test function.
regards, tom lane