Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> The git tree is at:
> git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/andresfreund/postgres.git branch xlog-decoding-rebasing-cf4
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=users/andresfreund/postgres.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/xlog-decoding-rebasing-cf4
>
> On 2013-06-15 00:48:17 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Overview of the attached patches:
>> 0001: indirect toast tuples; required but submitted independently
>> 0002: functions for testing; not required,
>> 0003: (tablespace, filenode) syscache; required
>> 0004: RelationMapFilenodeToOid: required, simple
>> 0005: pg_relation_by_filenode() function; not required but useful
>> 0006: Introduce InvalidCommandId: required, simple
>> 0007: Adjust Satisfies* interface: required, mechanical,
>> 0008: Allow walsender to attach to a database: required, needs review
>> 0009: New GetOldestXmin() parameter; required, pretty boring
>> 0010: Log xl_running_xact regularly in the bgwriter: required
>> 0011: make fsync_fname() public; required, needs to be in a different file
>> 0012: Relcache support for an Relation's primary key: required
>> 0013: Actual changeset extraction; required
>> 0014: Output plugin demo; not required (except for testing) but useful
>> 0015: Add pg_receivellog program: not required but useful
>> 0016: Add test_logical_decoding extension; not required, but contains
>> the tests for the feature. Uses 0014
>> 0017: Snapshot building docs; not required

I've now also committed patch #7 from this series. My earlier commit
fulfilled the needs of patches #3, #4, and #5; and somewhat longer ago
I committed #1. I am not entirely convinced of the necessity or
desirability of patch #6, but as of now I haven't studied the issues
closely. Patch #2 does not seem useful in isolation; it adds new
regression-testing stuff but doesn't use it anywhere.

I doubt that any of the remaining patches (#8-#17) can be applied
separately without understanding the shape of the whole patch set, so
I think I, or someone else, will need to set aside more time for
detailed review before proceeding further with this patch set. I
suggest that we close out the CommitFest entry for this patch set one
way or another, as there is no way we're going to get the whole thing
done under the auspices of CF1.

I'll try to find some more time to spend on this relatively soon, but
I think this is about as far as I can take this today.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company