Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

Hi Vinayak,

Thanks for the quick review!

On 2016/03/10 16:22, pokurev(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp wrote:
>> On 2016/03/10 14:29, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Updated patches attached.
> In 0002-

[ snip ]

> I think we need to use datid instead of datname.
> Robert added datid in pg_stat_get_progress_info() and we are using that function here.
> +values[1] = ObjectIdGetDatum(beentry->st_databaseid);

[ snip ]

> So I think it's better to report datid not datname.
> The definition of view is simply like:
> +CREATE VIEW pg_stat_progress_vacuum AS
> + SELECT
> + S.pid AS pid,
> + S.datid AS datid,
> + S.relid AS relid,
> + CASE S.param1
> + WHEN 1 THEN 'scanning heap'
> + WHEN 2 THEN 'vacuuming indexes'
> + WHEN 3 THEN 'vacuuming heap'
> + WHEN 4 THEN 'cleanup'
> + ELSE 'unknown phase'
> + END AS processing_phase,
> + S.param2 AS total_heap_blocks,
> + S.param3 AS current_heap_block,
> + S.param4 AS total_index_blocks,
> + S.param5 AS index_blocks_done,
> + S.param6 AS index_vacuum_count,
> + CASE S.param2
> + WHEN 0 THEN round(100.0, 2)
> + ELSE round((S.param3 + 1) * 100.0 / S.param2, 2)
> + END AS percent_done
> + FROM pg_stat_get_progress_info('VACUUM') AS S;
>
> So maybe we can add datname as separate column in pg_stat_progress_vacuum, I think it's not required only datid is sufficient.
> Any comment?

Why do you think showing the name may be unacceptable? Wouldn't that be a
little more user-friendly? Though maybe, we can follow the
pg_stat_activity style and have both instead, as you suggest. Attached
updated version does that.

Thanks,
Amit