On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 9:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:28 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, introducing an additional boolean variable for this doesn't seem
> like a good idea neither the other alternative suggested by you. How
> about if we change the comment to make it clear. How about: "If output
> plugin supports two-phase commits and doesn't skip the transaction at
> prepare time then we don't need to decode the transaction data at
> commit prepared time as it would have already been decoded at prepare
> time."?
Yes, that works for me.
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia