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

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