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

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Date: 2018-12-16 17:54:47
Message-ID: 4d6873b5-6749-c1e3-95ed-b111e7607742@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

FWIW the original CF entry in 2018-07 [1] was marked as RWF. I'm not
sure what's the right way to resubmit such patches, so I've created a
new entry in 2019-01 [2] referencing the same hackers thread (and with
the same authors/reviewers metadata).

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/19/1429/
[2] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/21/1927/

regards

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-12-16 18:05:03 Why aren't we using strsignal(3) ?
Previous Message John Naylor 2018-12-16 16:50:15 reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)