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

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(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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