| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| 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 04:16:26 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYfN4_LB54UOxXT3DsuQ2i-kFN92ZD+q+VK2cGRGoNybw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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? But
otherwise, yes, you've accurate summarized what I think we should do.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-11 04:16:38 | Re: Fix for OpenSSL error queue bug |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-03-11 04:16:25 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |