| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Adam Lee <adam8157(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER progress: wrong index_rebuild_count for tables with TOAST |
| Date: | 2026-09-16 09:42:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFQAQgmFcAhYsVd+44QjUBtv-mEcqBezsvRL2DZcvQSuA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 9:52 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> wrote:
> I agree that the test is overkill -- after all, we don't test any of
> progress reporting, and I'm not sure it's really a great approach to do
> that by adding bespoke injection points.
>
> Your 0001 looks good to me.
Thanks for the review! I've pushed the patch.
> Maybe in a future release we can discuss a framework for making progress
> updates visible in debug builds, so that they can be observed from a
> new test framework.
+1
> > While working on this patch, I also found a related but separate issue:
> > during REPACK (CONCURRENTLY), index_rebuild_count in
> > pg_stat_progress_repack and pg_stat_progress_cluster did not advance
> > as indexes were rebuilt. The attached 0002 patch fixes this issue.
>
> Hmm, yeah, this patch looks good also.
I've pushed this patch as well. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Manuel Reyes Bravo | 2026-09-16 09:43:39 | Re: Use C11 alignas instead of palloc/malloc for alignment |
| Previous Message | Manuel Reyes Bravo | 2026-09-16 09:20:29 | Re: Distinguish publication exclusions in object addresses |