| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Report index currently being vacuumed in pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
| Date: | 2026-08-14 23:35:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0uSgpbwQ-EJqX6Z-pAgyAKRZjaroGLcGwYvSxv8Oj71qQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> If we do expose per-worker progress, a separate view is the better home.
> Most columns here are the leader's or shared, so a per-worker row would
> be mostly empty anyway.
A different idea other than aggregating the pids and oid's into a list
as is currently
being proposed, would be to have a "pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker" view,
which initially will be 4 columns:
"pid"
"leader_pid"
"phase"
"oid"
and it will have a row for every worker ( or leader ) and the "oid" they are
processing, which could be a index ( or a heap if we get to that point of
parallel heap vacuum ).
My hesitation is this is not really a "progress" view, since it's not showing
progress related data. Just thought I'll put this out there for discussion
as well.
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2026-08-15 00:01:17 | Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-08-14 23:33:46 | Re: Optimize UUID parse using SIMD |