Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 56500356.4070101@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/19/15 7:29 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> Another option is to provide the means for the index scan routines to >> >report their progress. Maybe every index AM won't use it, but it'd >> >certainly be a lot better than staring at a long_running boolean. > The boolean would be a workaround for sure. I'm also slightly tempted by > the idea of instrumenting vacuum scans of individual index AM's bulkdelete > methods. One precedent is how vacuum_delay_point() are sprinkled around in > the code. Another problem to solve would be to figure out how to pass > progress parameters around - via some struct or could they be globals just > like VacuumCost* variables are... It just occurred to me that we could do the instrumentation in lazy_tid_reaped(). It might seem bad to do in increment for every tuple in an index, but we're already doing a bsearch over the dead tuple list. Presumably that's going to be a lot more expensive than an increment operation. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: