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

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-sqstN07dAd7bg66tx1OgbZJqmQT0uf7B33eEnX+Vj-zA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
List pgsql-hackers


On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 4:02 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Use for name of unnamed portal's memory context
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for configure error in 9.5/9.6 on macOS 11.0 Big Sur