Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting

From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Josef Šimánek <josef(dot)simanek(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting
Date: 2021-03-04 12:36:45
Message-ID: CALj2ACXDX0oY46XNrQoBvGRyEANZnhSew3SB92RL0n5x5bAREw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 PM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 11:38, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:16:17PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > IMO, the phrasing proposed by Justin upthread looks good. It's like this:
> > >
> > > > + Each backend running <command>ANALYZE</command> will report its progress in
> > > > + the <structname>pg_stat_progress_analyze</structname> view. See
> >
> > No objections to just go with that. As a new patch set is needed, I
> > am switching the CF entry to "Waiting on Author".
>
> Thanks for all your comments, and sorry for the delayed response.
> Please find attached a new version of the patch set, that is rebased
> and contains the requested changes:
>
> 1/3:
> Docs:
> - on which the COPY command is executed
> + on which the COPY command is being executed
> Reworded existing commment:
> - /* Increment amount of processed tuples and update the progress */
> + /* Increment the number of processed tuples, and report the progress */

LGTM.

> 2/3:
> Docs:
> - ... report its progress to ...
> + ... report its progress in ...
> - report its progress to the >pg_stat_progress_cluster< ...
> + report its progress in the >pg_stat_progress_cluster< view ...

+ <para>
+ Each backend running <command>VACUUM</command> without the
+ <literal>FULL</literal> option will report its progress in the
+ <structname>pg_stat_progress_vacuum</structname> view. Backends running
+ <command>VACUUM</command> with the <literal>FULL</literal> option report
+ progress in the <structname>pg_stat_progress_cluster</structname> view
+ instead. See <xref linkend="vacuum-progress-reporting"/> and
+ <xref linkend="cluster-progress-reporting"/> for details.
+ </para>

I think a typo, missing "will" between option and report - it's "with
the <literal>FULL</literal> option will report"

Except the above typo, 0002 LGTM.

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2021-03-04 12:55:13 Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-03-04 12:11:54 Re: [PATCH] pgbench: Bug fix for the -d option