Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large
 in-progress transactions
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
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>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Message-ID: <2a2dc8ac-1736-781e-0c27-b58ca4c5c30b@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 22:06:32 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3061838d-2db6-eaef-6bc6-0091573afec8@pgmasters.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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