| From: | Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro(dot)yamada(dot)tf(at)nttcom(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: progress report for ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2020-01-27 10:16:25 |
| Message-ID: | f7c2d0a3-acc7-1a27-7d88-d970bced80c3@nttcom.co.jp_1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020/01/24 23:44, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:47 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2020-Jan-22, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
>>> P.S.
>>> Next up is progress reporting for query execution?!
>>
>> Actually, I think it's ALTER TABLE.
>
> +1. Existing infrastructure might be enough to cover ALTER TABLE's
> needs, whereas we will very likely need to build entirely different
> infrastructure for tracking the progress for SQL query execution.
Yeah, I agree.
I will create a little POC patch after reading tablecmds.c and alter.c to
investigate how to report progress. :)
Regards,
Tatsuro Yamada
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-01-27 10:28:31 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2020-01-27 09:38:13 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |