Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1Ki7scJ0Ch+=Uy7w8Q+o8d1wkX_wTNp6Fb3hGVY1Esvbg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:26 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:02 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I have made the changes.  Basically, now I am only using the
> > XLOG_XACT_INVALIDATIONS for generating all the invalidation messages.
> > So whenever we are getting the new set of XLOG_XACT_INVALIDATIONS, we
> > are directly appending it to the txn->invalidations.  I have tested
> > the XLOG_INVALIDATIONS part but while sending this mail I realized
> > that we could write some automated test for the same.
> >
>
> Can you share how you have tested it?
>
> >  I will work on
> > that soon.
> >
>
> Cool, I think having a regression test for this will be a good idea.
>

Other than above tests, can we somehow verify that the invalidations
generated at commit time are the same as what we do with this patch?
We have verified with individual commands but it would be great if we
can verify for the regression tests.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josef Šimánek
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Initial progress reporting for COPY command
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions