| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: improve DEBUG1 logging of parallel workers for CREATE INDEX? |
| Date: | 2025-01-09 03:24:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0uzC12pVHKYkrmmSi9p0vLqkRN-iKTy03_X-ZRLuP9vEg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Of course, a patch for that would be a few orders of magnitude
> larger than what you've got here :-(. But if you're looking
> for a framework for reporting these sorts of details, I'd
> much rather go in that direction than follow the model of
> VACUUM VERBOSE. VACUUM VERBOSE is a kluge with little to
> recommend it other than having been easy to implement.
To my surprise, REINDEX does have a VERBOSE option.
should have check this earlier :)
postgres=# reindex (verbose) index t_idx1;
INFO: index "t_idx1" was reindexed
DETAIL: CPU: user: 5.33 s, system: 0.48 s, elapsed: 6.26 s
REINDEX
Is there a reason not to do the same for CREATE INDEX?
Also, we can improve the REINDEX verbose message by
also providing the parallel usage.
Regards,
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2025-01-09 03:26:31 | RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2025-01-09 03:18:20 | Re: psql: Option to use expanded mode for various meta-commands |