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

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:55 AM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 1/3/18 14:53, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> I don't see the need to tie this setting to maintenance_work_mem.
> >> maintenance_work_mem is often set to very large values, which could
> >> then have undesirable side effects on this use.
> >
> > Well, we need to pick some default value, and we can either use a fixed
> > value (not sure what would be a good default) or tie it to an existing
> > GUC. We only really have work_mem and maintenance_work_mem, and the
> > walsender process will never use more than one such buffer. Which seems
> > to be closer to maintenance_work_mem.
> >
> > Pretty much any default value can have undesirable side effects.
>
> Let's just make it an independent setting unless we know any better. We
> don't have a lot of settings that depend on other settings, and the ones
> we do have a very specific relationship.
>
> >> Moreover, the name logical_work_mem makes it sound like it's a logical
> >> version of work_mem. Maybe we could think of another name.
> >
> > I won't object to a better name, of course. Any proposals?
>
> logical_decoding_[work_]mem?
>

Having a separate variable for this can give more flexibility, but
OTOH it will add one more knob which user might not have a good idea
to set. What are the problems we see if directly use work_mem for
this case?

If we can't use work_mem, then I think the name proposed by you
(logical_decoding_work_mem) sounds good to me.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com