From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
Date: | 2022-01-12 19:28:23 |
Message-ID: | 6753CC4A-D1D8-477D-9B82-CFE12169DFF5@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
> to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
> view is expected to be used together with and joined to
> pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
> information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
> that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
> column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
> (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.
I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
But is that really better than having a separate view?
> Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
> infer from this value (without a total number)?
I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.
Nathan
[0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2022-01-12 19:34:00 | Windows vs recovery tests |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-12 19:24:09 | Re: sepgsql logging |