Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-03-03T01:36:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Tighten the concurrent abort check during decoding.

  2. Improve hash_create()'s API for some added robustness.

  3. Use HASH_BLOBS for xidhash.

  4. Fix initialization of RelationSyncEntry for streaming transactions.

  5. Remove unused function declaration in logicalproto.h.

  6. Add additional tests to test streaming of in-progress transactions.

  7. Fix inline marking introduced in commit 464824323e.

  8. Add support for streaming to built-in logical replication.

  9. Fix the SharedFileSetUnregister API.

  10. Fix comment in procarray.c

  11. Suppress compiler warning in non-cassert builds.

  12. Extend the BufFile interface.

  13. Mark a few logical decoding related variables with PGDLLIMPORT.

  14. Implement streaming mode in ReorderBuffer.

  15. Extend the logical decoding output plugin API with stream methods.

  16. WAL Log invalidations at command end with wal_level=logical.

  17. Immediately WAL-log subtransaction and top-level XID association.

  18. Allow logical replication to transfer data in binary format.

  19. Only superuser can set sslcert/sslkey in postgres_fdw user mappings

  20. Track statistics for spilling of changes from ReorderBuffer.

  21. Add logical_decoding_work_mem to limit ReorderBuffer memory usage.

  22. logical decoding: process ASSIGNMENT during snapshot build

  23. Emit invalidations to standby for transactions without xid.

On 2018-03-03 02:34:06 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 03/03/2018 02:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-03-03 02:00:46 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> That is somewhat misleading, I think. You're right the last version
> >> was submitted on 2018-01-19, but the next review arrived on
> >> 2018-01-31, i.e. right at the end of the CF. So it's not like the
> >> patch was sitting there with unresolved issues. Based on that
> >> review the patch was marked as RWF and thus not moved to 2018-03
> >> automatically.
> > 
> > I don't see how this changes anything.
> > 
> 
> You've used "The patch hasn't moved forward since 2018-01-19," as an
> argument why the patch is not eligible for 2018-03. I suggest that
> argument is misleading, because patches generally do not move without
> reviews, and it's difficult to respond to a review that arrives on the
> last day of a commitfest.
> 
> Consider that without the review, the patch would end up with NR status,
> and would be moved to the next CF automatically. Isn't that a bit weird?

Not sure I follow. The point is that nobody would have complained if
you'd moved the patch into this fest if you'd updated it *before* it
started?

Greetings,

Andres Freund