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 CAA4eK1L5u=L42CjAb44CrgH4c10-ew8Q=1SqqJ0QSVNr-a6XaQ@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  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some notes before commit:
> --------------------------------------
> 1.
> Commit message need to be changed for the first patch
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A.
> > The memory limit is defined by a new logical_decoding_work_mem GUC, so for example we can do this
>
>     SET logical_decoding_work_mem = '128kB'
>
> > to trigger very aggressive streaming. The minimum value is 64kB.
>
> I think this patch doesn't contain streaming, so we either need to
> reword it or remove it.
>
> B.
> > The logical_decoding_work_mem may be set either in postgresql.conf, in which case it serves as the default for all
publisherson that instance, or when creating the
 
> > subscription, using a work_mem paramemter in the WITH clause (specifies number of kilobytes).
>
> We need to reword this as we have decided to remove the setting from
> the subscription side as of now.
>
> 2. I think we can change the message level in UpdateSpillStats() to DEBUG2.
>

I have made these modifications and additionally ran pgindent.

> 4. I think we can combine both patches and commit as one patch, but it
> is okay to commit them separately as well.
>

I am not sure if this is a good idea, so still kept them as separate.

Tomas, do let me know if you want to commit these or if you have any
comments, otherwise, I will commit these on Tuesday (19-Nov)?

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: parveen mehta
Date:
Subject: Postgres on IBM z/OS 2.2.0 and 2.3.0
Next
From: Te
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.