| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan A&PS Delivery)" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting for pg_basebackup, in the server side |
| Date: | 2020-03-19 02:24:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20200319022426.GA26813@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Mar-19, Amit Langote wrote:
> Magnus' idea of checking the values in pg_stat_get_progress_info() to
> determine whether to return NULL seems fine to me. We will need to
> update the documentation of st_progress_param, because it currently
> says:
>
> * ...but the meaning of each element in the
> * st_progress_param array is command-specific.
> */
> ProgressCommandType st_progress_command;
> Oid st_progress_command_target;
> int64 st_progress_param[PGSTAT_NUM_PROGRESS_PARAM];
> } PgBackendStatus;
>
> If we are to define -1 in st_progress_param[] as NULL to the users,
> that must be mentioned here.
Hmm, why -1? It seems like a value that we might want to use for other
purposes in other params. Maybe INT64_MIN is a better choice?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-19 02:26:17 | Re: pgsql: walreceiver uses a temporary replication slot by default |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-03-19 02:09:14 | Re: Parallel grouping sets |