Re: [PATCH] Initial progress reporting for COPY command

From: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Josef Šimánek <josef(dot)simanek(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Initial progress reporting for COPY command
Date: 2020-06-25 01:05:22
Message-ID: CALDaNm32E8AYwB0aau2zd0MnjxZC2HM9in_vH_SFSovv8CuJng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:45 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Anyway if you would like to make this view more user-friendly, I can add that. Just ping me.
> >
> >I felt we could add pg_size_pretty to make the view more user friendly.
> >
>
> Please no. That'd make processing of the data (say, computing progress
> as processed/total) impossible. It's easy to add pg_size_pretty if you
> want it, it's impossible to undo it. I don't see a single pg_size_pretty
> call in system_views.sql.
>

I thought of including pg_size_pretty as we there was no total_bytes
to compare with, but I'm ok without it too as there is an option for
user to always include it in the client side like "SELECT
pg_size_pretty(file_bytes_processed) from pg_stat_progress_copy;" if
required.

Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-06-25 01:50:26 Re: should libpq also require TLSv1.2 by default?
Previous Message Melanie Plageman 2020-06-25 00:26:07 Re: hashagg slowdown due to spill changes