Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYdZk9nPDtS+_kOt4S6fDRQLW+1jnJBmG0pkRT4ynxO=Q@mail.gmail.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.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > As someone pointed out upthread, the final heap truncate phase can take > arbitrarily long and is outside the scope of lazy_scan_heap() to > instrument. Perhaps a bool, say, waiting_heap_trunc could be reported for > the same. Note that, it would have to be reported from lazy_vacuum_rel(). I don't think reporting booleans is a very good idea. It's better to report that some other way, like use one of the strings to report a "phase" of processing that we're currently performing. > IMHO, float progress parameters (st_progress_param_float[]) can be taken > out. They are currently unused and it's unlikely that some command would > want to report them. If they are not used, they shouldn't be included in this patch, but we should be open to adding them later if it proves useful. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: