Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

Hi Amit,

Thank you for updating the patch.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amit Langote [mailto:Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:09 PM
> To: SPS ポクレ ヴィナヤック(三技術) <pokurev@pm.nttdata.co.jp>;
> robertmhaas@gmail.com
> Cc: horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp; amitlangote09@gmail.com; pgsql-
> hackers@postgresql.org; SPS 坂野 昌平(三技術) <bannos@nttdata.co.jp>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
> 
> 
> Hi Vinayak,
> 
> Thanks for the quick review!
> 
> On 2016/03/10 16:22, pokurev@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
> >> On 2016/03/10 14:29, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> Updated patches attached.
> > In 0002-
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> > I think we need to use datid instead of datname.
> > Robert added datid in pg_stat_get_progress_info() and we are using that
> function here.
> > +values[1] = ObjectIdGetDatum(beentry->st_databaseid);
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> > So I think it's better to report datid not datname.
> > The definition of view is simply like:
> > +CREATE VIEW pg_stat_progress_vacuum AS
> > +    SELECT
> > +            S.pid AS pid,
> > +            S.datid AS datid,
> > +            S.relid AS relid,
> > +            CASE S.param1
> > +                WHEN 1 THEN 'scanning heap'
> > +                WHEN 2 THEN 'vacuuming indexes'
> > +                WHEN 3 THEN 'vacuuming heap'
> > +                WHEN 4 THEN 'cleanup'
> > +                ELSE 'unknown phase'
> > +            END AS processing_phase,
> > +            S.param2 AS total_heap_blocks,
> > +            S.param3 AS current_heap_block,
> > +            S.param4 AS total_index_blocks,
> > +            S.param5 AS index_blocks_done,
> > +            S.param6 AS index_vacuum_count,
> > +            CASE S.param2
> > +                WHEN 0 THEN round(100.0, 2)
> > +                ELSE round((S.param3 + 1) * 100.0 / S.param2, 2)
> > +            END AS percent_done
> > +    FROM pg_stat_get_progress_info('VACUUM') AS S;
> >
> > So maybe we can add datname as separate column in
> pg_stat_progress_vacuum, I think it's not required only datid is sufficient.
> > Any comment?
> 
> Why do you think showing the name may be unacceptable?  Wouldn't that
> be a little more user-friendly?  Though maybe, we can follow the
> pg_stat_activity style and have both instead, as you suggest.  Attached
> updated version does that.
+1
I think reporting both (datid and datname) is more user-friendly.
Thank you.

Regards,
Vinayak Pokale