| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tatsuro Yamada <yamada(dot)tatsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor |
| Date: | 2019-03-06 15:13:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20190306151316.GA7143@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Mar-06, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:03 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > One, err, small issue with that idea is that we need the param numbers
> > not to conflict for any "progress update providers" that are to be used
> > simultaneously by any command.
>
> Is that really an issue? I think progress reporting -- at least with
> the current infrastructure -- is only ever going to be possible for
> utility commands, not queries. And those really shouldn't have very
> many sorts going on at once.
Well, I don't think it is, but I thought it was worth pointing out
explicitly.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2019-03-06 15:13:17 | Re: openLogOff is not needed anymore |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-03-06 15:12:02 | Re: proposal: variadic argument support for least, greatest function |