| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tatsuro Yamada <yamada(dot)tatsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor |
| Date: | 2017-11-22 00:53:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTnt1vbgZQY5kE+agi5VuJwKtmJL57NkqvprpVkOrXyuQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have been of the opinion all along that progress monitoring needs to
> report facts, not theories. The number of tuples read thus far is a
> fact, and is fine to report for whatever value it may have to someone.
> The number of tuples that will be read in the future is a theory, and
> as you say, progress monitoring is most likely to be used in cases
> where theory and practice ended up being very different.
+1. We should never as well enter in things like trying to estimate
the amount of time remaining to finish a task [1].
[1]: https://www.xkcd.com/612/
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-11-22 00:58:03 | Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-11-22 00:50:40 | Re: Anybody care about having the verbose form of the tzdata files? |