Horton

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

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>

View thread
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-03-03T02:08:22Z
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 8:54 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 03/03/2018 02:37 AM, David Steele wrote:
>> On 3/2/18 8:01 PM, 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.
>>
>> I agree that things could be clearer, and Andres has produced a great
>> document that we can build on.  The old one had gotten a bit stale.
>>
>> However, I think it's pretty obvious that a CF entry should be 
>> accompanied with a patch. It sounds like the timing was awkward but
>> you still had 28 days to produce a new patch.
> 
> Based on internal discussion I'm not so sure about the "pretty obvious"
> part. It certainly wasn't that obvious to me, otherwise I'd submit the
> revised patch earlier - hindsight is 20/20.

Indeed it is.  Be assured that nobody takes pleasure in pushing patches,
but we have limited resources and must make some choices.

>> I also notice that you submitted 7 patches in this CF but are
>> reviewing zero.
> 
> I've volunteered to review a couple of patches at the FOSDEM Developer
> Meeting - I thought Stephen was entering that into the CF app, not sure
> where it got lost.

There are plenty of patches that need review, so go for it.

Regards,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net