Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
От | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20151203.134742.117960952.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, At Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:48:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in <20151202184820.GL2763@alvherre.pgsql> > Vinayak wrote: > > > In the vacuum progress, column table_name is showing first 30 characters of > > table name. > > postgres=# create table test_vacuum_progress_in_postgresql(c1 int,c2 text); > > postgres=# select * from pg_stat_vacuum_progress ; > > -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ > > pid | 12284 > > table_name | public.test_vacuum_progress_i > > Actually, do we really need to have the table name as a string at all > here? Why not just report the table OID? Surely whoever wants to check > the progress can connect to the database in question to figure out the > table name. I thought the same thing but found that the same kind of view (say, pg_stat_user_tables) has separate relanme and shcemaname in string (not a qualified name, though). Apart from the representation of the relation, OID would be better as a field in beentry. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: