Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables
От | Ilya Gladyshev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 865a4ff239b6824fd5bbdd4a972390d1e95144b4.camel@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2023-01-08 at 10:48 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 08:30:02AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > We have the common problem of too many patches. > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a15f904a70924ffa4ca25c3c744cff31e0e6e143.camel%40gmail.com > > This changes the progress reporting to show indirect children as > > "total", and adds a global variable to track recursion into > > DefineIndex(), allowing it to be incremented without the value > > being > > lost to the caller. > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20221211063334.GB27893%40telsasoft.com > > This also counts indirect children, but only increments the > > progress > > reporting in the parent. This has the disadvantage that when > > intermediate partitions are in use, the done_partitions counter > > will > > "jump" from (say) 20 to 30 without ever hitting 21-29. > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20221213044331.GJ27893%40telsasoft.com > > This has two alternate patches: > > - One patch changes to only update progress reporting of *direct* > > children. This is minimal, but discourages any future plan to > > track > > progress involving intermediate partitions with finer > > granularity. > > - A alternative patch adds IndexStmt.nparts_done, and allows > > reporting > > fine-grained progress involving intermediate partitions. > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/039564d234fc3d014c555a7ee98be69a9e724836.camel@gmail.com > > This also reports progress of intermediate children. The first > > patch > > does it by adding an argument to DefineIndex() (which isn't okay to > > backpatch). And an alternate patch does it by adding to IndexStmt. > > > > @committers: Is it okay to add nparts_done to IndexStmt ? > > Any hint about this ? > > This should be resolved before the "CIC on partitioned tables" patch, > which I think is otherwise done. I suggest that we move on with the IndexStmt patch and see what the committers have to say about it. I have brushed the patch up a bit, fixing TODOs and adding docs as per our discussion above.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: