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

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>

From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-03-02T20:21:19Z
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 3/2/18 3:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Ah, apologies - that's due to moving the patch from the last CF (it was
>> marked as RWF so I had to reopen it before moving it). I'll submit a new
>> version of the patch shortly, please mark it as WOA until then.
> 
> So, the way it's supposed to work is you resubmit the patch first and
> then re-activate the CF entry.  If you get to re-activate the CF entry
> without actually updating the patch, and then submit the patch
> afterwards, then the CF deadline becomes largely meaningless.  I think
> a new patch should rejected as untimely.

Hmmm, I missed that implication last night.  I'll mark this Returned
with Feedback.

Tomas, please move to the next CF once you have an updated patch.

Thanks,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net