| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pokurev(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, bannos(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
| Date: | 2016-03-11 05:31:56 |
| Message-ID: | 56E2584C.1070207@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/03/11 13:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> So, from what I understand here, we should not put total count of index
>> pages into st_progress_param; rather, have the client (reading
>> pg_stat_progress_vacuum) derive it using pg_indexes_size() (?), as and
>> when necessary. However, only server is able to tell the current position
>> within an index vacuuming round (or how many pages into a given index
>> vacuuming round), so report that using some not-yet-existent mechanism.
>
> Isn't that mechanism what you are trying to create in 0003?
Right, 0003 should hopefully become that mechanism.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-03-11 06:00:20 | Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-03-11 05:31:37 | Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations |