Обсуждение: Re: PostgreSQL 15 minor fixes in protocol.sgml

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

Re: PostgreSQL 15 minor fixes in protocol.sgml

От
Amit Kapila
Дата:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:00:20PM +0300, Ekaterina Kiryanova wrote:
>
> > Another point worth mentioning is that only this file contains the phrase
> > "two-phase transaction". I believe that "two-phase commit transaction" or
> > "transaction prepared for two-phase commit" depending on the situation would
> > be better wording.
>
> "Prepare for two-phase commit" may be clearer?
>

I think we can use just "Prepared transaction" instead. So, the
message "The user defined GID of the two-phase transaction." can be
changed to "The user defined GID of the prepared transaction.".
Similarly, the message "Identifies the message as a two-phase prepared
transaction message." could be changed to: "Identifies the message as
a prepared transaction message."

> > And finally, could you please clarify this part?
> > -- The end LSN of the prepare transaction.
> > Is it a typo of "prepared transaction"?

I think in this case it should be a "prepared transaction".


Thanks for the report and Thanks Michael for including me. I am just
redirecting it to -hackers so that others involved in this feature
also can share their views.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



Re: PostgreSQL 15 minor fixes in protocol.sgml

От
Peter Smith
Дата:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 1:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:00:20PM +0300, Ekaterina Kiryanova wrote:
> >
> > > Another point worth mentioning is that only this file contains the phrase
> > > "two-phase transaction". I believe that "two-phase commit transaction" or
> > > "transaction prepared for two-phase commit" depending on the situation would
> > > be better wording.
> >
> > "Prepare for two-phase commit" may be clearer?
> >
>
> I think we can use just "Prepared transaction" instead. So, the
> message "The user defined GID of the two-phase transaction." can be
> changed to "The user defined GID of the prepared transaction.".
> Similarly, the message "Identifies the message as a two-phase prepared
> transaction message." could be changed to: "Identifies the message as
> a prepared transaction message."
>
> > > And finally, could you please clarify this part?
> > > -- The end LSN of the prepare transaction.
> > > Is it a typo of "prepared transaction"?
>
> I think in this case it should be a "prepared transaction".
>
>
> Thanks for the report and Thanks Michael for including me. I am just
> redirecting it to -hackers so that others involved in this feature
> also can share their views.
>

PSA a patch to modify the descriptions as suggested by Amit.

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

Вложения

Re: PostgreSQL 15 minor fixes in protocol.sgml

От
Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
On 2022-Aug-03, Amit Kapila wrote:

> Thanks for the report and Thanks Michael for including me. I am just
> redirecting it to -hackers so that others involved in this feature
> also can share their views.

I'm sorry, but our policy is that crossposts are not allowed.  I think
this policy is bad, precisely because it prevents legitimate cases like
this one; but it is what it is.

I think we should change the policy, not back to allow indiscriminate
cross-posting, but to allow some limited form of it.  For example I
think pg-bugs+pg-hackers and pg-docs+pg-hackers should be allowed
combinations.  Just saying.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/



Re: PostgreSQL 15 minor fixes in protocol.sgml

От
Amit Kapila
Дата:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:23 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2022-Aug-03, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the report and Thanks Michael for including me. I am just
> > redirecting it to -hackers so that others involved in this feature
> > also can share their views.
>
> I'm sorry, but our policy is that crossposts are not allowed.  I think
> this policy is bad, precisely because it prevents legitimate cases like
> this one; but it is what it is.
>
> I think we should change the policy, not back to allow indiscriminate
> cross-posting, but to allow some limited form of it.  For example I
> think pg-bugs+pg-hackers and pg-docs+pg-hackers should be allowed
> combinations.  Just saying.
>

+1.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.