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: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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: 2019-03-28 14:53:59
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1903281526130.21341@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hallo Michael,

>> but I'd advise that you split it in (1) progress andĀ (2) signal
>> toggling so that the first part is more likely to make itĀ before 12
>> freeze.
>
> Ok, done so in the attached.

Fine.

I think that it is good to show the overall impact of the signal stuff, in
particular the fact that the size must always be computed if the progress
may be activated.

Also, I'd suggest to add "volatile" on the show_progress variable in the
second patch.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-03-28 14:55:53 Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]
Previous Message Adrien NAYRAT 2019-03-28 14:46:03 Re: Sparse bit set data structure