Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large
 in-progress transactions
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <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>
 <90964101-eef1-68b1-a337-5e5d4bd6e7f0@pgmasters.net>
 <20180302200529.fwiquub5cr3o4gpz@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <f288c9a2-fbad-6245-c061-90042f2d63ea@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20180303010153.myd3f2bcdvqo6ry5@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <ecc17b46-c2e6-5ed4-eb16-eb6bcb0908bd@pgmasters.net>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Message-ID: <47ffe720-8255-923d-78fc-a7c4e9011a42@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 02:54:41 +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: <ecc17b46-c2e6-5ed4-eb16-eb6bcb0908bd@pgmasters.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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.

> 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.

regards

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