Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16ef30f3-f4d6-1dea-b807-e0936c7532c6@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/03/10 11:36, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2020/03/09 14:21, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 10:13 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi >> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> At Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:54:09 -0800, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote in >>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 1:51 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >>>>> I believe that the time required to estimate the backup size is not so large >>>>> in most cases, so in the above idea, most users don't need to specify more >>>>> option for the estimation. This is good for UI perspective. >>>>> >>>>> OTOH, users who are worried about the estimation time can use >>>>> --no-estimate-backup-size option and skip the time-consuming estimation. >>>> >>>> Personally, I think this is the best idea. it brings a "reasonable >>>> default", since most people are not going to have this problem, and >>>> yet a good way to get out from the issue for those that potentially >>>> have it. Especially since we are now already showing the state that >>>> "walsender is estimating the size", it should be easy enugh for people >>>> to determine if they need to use this flag or not. >>>> >>>> In nitpicking mode, I'd just call the flag --no-estimate-size -- it's >>>> pretty clear things are about backups when you call pg_basebackup, and >>>> it keeps the option a bit more reasonable in length. > > +1 > >>> I agree to the negative option and the shortened name. What if both >>> --no-estimate-size and -P are specifed? Rejecting as conflicting >>> options or -P supercedes? I would choose the former because we don't >>> know which of them has priority. >> >> I would definitely prefer rejecting an invalid combination of options. > > +1 > > So, I will make the patch adding support for --no-estimate-size option > in pg_basebackup. Patch attached. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NTT DATA CORPORATION Advanced Platform Technology Group Research and Development Headquarters
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: