From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]
Date: 2019-02-22 22:10:36
Message-ID: 20190222221036.GA18589@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hmm, looks like a very bare-bones support for hash indexes does not
require a lot of code, and gives a clear picture (you can sit all night
watching the numbers go up, instead of biting your fingernails wondering
if it'll be completed by dawn.) This part isn't 100% done -- it we
would better to have ambuildphasename support.

(I'm a bit confused about phase 5 not reporting anything for hash
indexes in CIC, though. That's part is supposed to be AM agnostic.)

I think it was a mistake to define the progress constants in one header
file commands/progress.h and the associated functions in pgstat.h. I
think it would be better to move the function decls to

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
progress-hash.patch text/x-diff 1.7 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-02-22 22:15:47 Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-02-22 21:54:23 Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]