Re: Generalize ereport_startup_progress infrastructure

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 11:54 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm attaching 0002 for reporting removal of temp files and temp
> relation files by postmaster.
>
> If this looks okay, I can code 0003 for reporting processing of
> snapshot, mapping and old WAL files by checkpointer.

I think that someone is going to complain about the changes to
timeout.c. Some trouble has been taken to allow things like
SetLatch(MyLatch) to be unconditional. Aside from that, I am unsure
how generally safe it is to use the timeout infrastructure in the
postmaster.

From a user-interface point of view, log_postmaster_progress_interval
seems a bit awkward. It's really quite narrow, basically just checking
for one thing. I'm not sure I like adding a GUC for something that
specific, although I also don't have another idea at the moment
either. Hmm.

Maybe the checkpointer is a better candidate, but somehow I feel that
we can't consider this sort of thing separate from the existing
progress reporting that checkpointer already does. Perhaps we need to
think of changing or improving that in some way rather than adding
something wholly new alongside the existing system.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com