From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Thakur, Sameer" <Sameer(dot)Thakur(at)nttdata(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Date: | 2015-07-21 18:06:33 |
Message-ID: | 55AE8A29.40802@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/20/15 4:32 AM, Thakur, Sameer wrote:
> Hello,
>> Does this actually handle multiple indexes? It doesn't appear so, which I'd think is a significant problem... :/
> Please find v2 attached which does this.
I think it'd be better to combine both numbers into one report:
elog(WARNING,"Current/Overall index percentage completion %f/%f",
current_index_progress * 100, all_index_progress);
It'd also be good to standardize on where the * 100 is happening.
Also, AFAIK:
(itemptr->ip_blkid.bi_hi != vacrelstats->last_scanned_page.bi_hi) ||
(itemptr->ip_blkid.bi_lo != vacrelstats->last_scanned_page.bi_lo)
can be replaced by
(itemptr->ipblkid != vacrelstats->last_scanned_page)
and
vacrelstats->current_index_scanned_page_count =
vacrelstats->current_index_scanned_page_count + 1;
can simply be
vacrelstats->current_index_scanned_page_count++;
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-21 18:07:24 | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-07-21 18:01:54 | Re: Selectivity estimation for intarray with @@ |