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

On 3/2/18 8:54 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> 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.

Indeed it is. Be assured that nobody takes pleasure in pushing patches,
but we have limited resources and must make some choices.

>> 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.

There are plenty of patches that need review, so go for it.

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net