Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Date: 2019-03-18 22:14:01
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1903182311130.23282@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I have rebased it now.

Thanks. Will look at it.

>> If the all of aboves are involved, the line would look as the
>> follows.
>> [=======================             ] ( 63% of 12.53 GB, 179 MB/s, ETC 26s)
>> # Note that this is just an opinion.
>> (pg_checksum runs fast at the beginning so ETC behaves somewhat
>> strange in the meanwhile.)
> I haven't changed that for now as it seems to be a bit more involved.
> I'd like to hear other opinions on whether that is worthwhile?

I think that the bar is overkill, but ETC is easy and nice.

>>> +     /* we handle SIGUSR1 only, and toggle the value of show_progress */
>>> +     if (signum == SIGUSR1)
>>> +             show_progress = !show_progress;
>> SIGUSR1 *toggles* progress.
> Not sure what you mean here,

Probably it is meant to simplify the comment?


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-03-18 23:24:40 Re: What to name the current heap after pluggable storage / what to rename?
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2019-03-18 22:08:52 Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods