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

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Date: 2020-09-05 15:25:03
Message-ID: CAFiTN-sqstN07dAd7bg66tx1OgbZJqmQT0uf7B33eEnX+Vj-zA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 4:02 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I have fixed all the comments except the below comments.
>
> > 1. verify the size of various tests to ensure that it is above
>
> > logical_decoding_work_mem.
>
> > 2. I have checked that in one of the previous patches, we have a test
>
> > v53-0004-Add-TAP-test-for-streaming-vs.-DDL which contains a test case
>
> > quite similar to what we have in
>
> >
> v55-0002-Add-support-for-streaming-to-built-in-logical-re/013_stream_subxact_ddl_abort.
>
> > If there is any difference that can cover more scenarios then can we
>
> > consider merging them into one test?
>
> >
>
>
>
> I have compared these two tests and found that the only thing
>
> additional in the test case present in
>
> v53-0004-Add-TAP-test-for-streaming-vs.-DDL was that it was performing
>
> few savepoints and DMLs after doing the first rollback to savepoint
>
> and I included that in one of the existing tests in
>
> 018_stream_subxact_abort.pl. I have added one test for Rollback,
>
> changed few messages, removed one test case which was not making any
>
> sense in the patch. See attached and let me know what you think about
>
> it?

I have reviewed the changes and looks fine to me.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-09-05 15:27:49 Re: Fix for configure error in 9.5/9.6 on macOS 11.0 Big Sur
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-09-05 15:10:20 Re: Use <unnamed> for name of unnamed portal's memory context