Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0eb0a7e5-031d-51b6-b1c7-9804915d44f2@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/18/21 4:46 PM, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you all for the suggestions. PFA version 8 of the patchset, in > which I have applied most of your comments. Unless explicitly named > below, I have applied the suggestions. > Thanks. > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra > <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> - The blocks in copyfrom.cc/copyto.c should be reworked - I don't think >> we do this in our codebase. > > I saw this being used in (re)index progress reporting, that's where I > took inspiration from. It has been fixed in the attached version. > Hmmm, good point. I haven't looked at the other places reporting progress and I only ever saw this pattern in old code. I kinda dislike these blocks, but admittedly that's rather subjective view. So if other similar places do this when reporting progress, this probably should too. What's your opinion on this? >> - I fir the "io_target" name misleading, because in some cases it's >> actually the *source*. > > Yes, I was also not quite happy with this, but couldn't find a better > one at the point of writing the initial patchset. Would > "io_operations", "io_port", "operates_through" or "through" maybe be > better? > No idea. Let's see if someone has a better proposal ... regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: