Re: pg_stat_progress_create_index vs. parallel index builds
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_stat_progress_create_index vs. parallel index builds |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 202106021638.sss4hyhp65bc@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pg_stat_progress_create_index vs. parallel index builds (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_stat_progress_create_index vs. parallel index builds
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Jun-02, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > While experimenting with parallel index builds, I've noticed a somewhat > strange behavior of pg_stat_progress_create_index when a btree index is > built with parallel workers - some of the phases seem to be missing. Hmm, that's odd. I distinctly recall testing the behavior with parallel workers, and it is mentioned by Rahila in the original thread, and I think we tried to ensure that it was sane. I am surprised to learn that there's such a large gap. I'll go have a deeper look at the provided patch and try to get it backpatched. I think it would be valuable to have some kind of test mode where the progress reporting APIs would make some noise (perhaps with a bespoke GUC option) so that we can test things in some automated manner ... -- Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W "In fact, the basic problem with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by the Conservation of Cruft Principle." (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: