Re: CLUSTER progress: wrong index_rebuild_count for tables with TOAST

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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