From: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
Date: | 2022-12-13 04:40:02 |
Message-ID: | 7CCF18B6-9CB6-4DC6-AE9B-756F388C541F@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with the feedback, except
for
> need to have ParallelVacuumProgress. I see
> parallel_vacuum_update_progress() uses this value but I think it's
> better to pass ParallelVacuumState to via IndexVacuumInfo.
I was trying to avoid passing a pointer to
ParallelVacuumState in IndexVacuuminfo.
ParallelVacuumProgress is implemented in the same
way as VacuumSharedCostBalance and
VacuumActiveNWorkers. See vacuum.h
These values are reset at the start of a parallel vacuum cycle
and reset at the end of an index vacuum cycle.
This seems like a better approach and less invasive.
What would be a reason not to go with this approach?
> parallel_vacuum_update_progress() is typically called every 1GB so I
> think we don't need to worry about unnecessary update. Also, I think
> this code doesn't work when pgstat_track_activities is false. Instead,
> I think that in parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish(), we can check
> the value of pvs->nindexes_completed and update the progress if there
> is an update or it's first time.
I agree that we don’t need to worry about unnecessary updates
in parallel_vacuum_update_progress since we are calling
every 1GB. I also don't think we should do anything additional
in parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish since here we are only
updating every 1 second.
Thanks,
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-12-13 04:43:31 | Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-12-13 04:27:17 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |