pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 22:06:32 +0100
Message-ID: <2a2dc8ac-1736-781e-0c27-b58ca4c5c30b@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3061838d-2db6-eaef-6bc6-0091573afec8@pgmasters.net>
References: <688b0b7f-2f6c-d827-c27b-216a8e3ea700@2ndquadrant.com>
	<ec3fbad0-06f6-08cb-7f0e-edd3fb0c2785@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAM-w4HNWQMnE8j9=Fa1QdwfKYs=XQanx03PL23yULbh1hPYSGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5d00346a-b565-7fde-c6da-35f39c72936a@2ndquadrant.com>
	<d72caaf1-a2da-081c-57ea-d30e5f47fd1e@2ndquadrant.com>
	<4d7ed7b8-df43-9b79-b04e-ad4c43ef519c@2ndquadrant.com>
	<d5f226c6-8a45-a9a3-4cb8-6d695b908eae@2ndquadrant.com>
	<ee4278d9-e421-145c-51d8-790a43ebff3d@2ndquadrant.com>
	<20180302011235.k7bxqmktrvgz5tpb@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<e976e0b4-e752-30f9-2025-95282f8f3ba8@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+TgmoaWMn2SaMqjmYQxV2FBUtuJ3uce28W=zS5n4T058u_Tow@mail.gmail.com>
	<3061838d-2db6-eaef-6bc6-0091573afec8@pgmasters.net>

On 03/02/2018 09:21 PM, David Steele wrote:
> 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.
> 

Can you guys please point me to the CF rules that say this? Because my
understanding (and not just mine, AFAICS) was obviously different.
Clearly there's a disconnect somewhere.

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services




view thread (536+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <2a2dc8ac-1736-781e-0c27-b58ca4c5c30b@2ndquadrant.com>
Permalink:  ../2a2dc8ac-1736-781e-0c27-b58ca4c5c30b@2ndquadrant.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/2a2dc8ac-1736-781e-0c27-b58ca4c5c30b@2ndquadrant.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, david@pgmasters.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
  In-Reply-To: <2a2dc8ac-1736-781e-0c27-b58ca4c5c30b@2ndquadrant.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox