From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Progress bar updates |
Date: | 2006-07-19 03:24:08 |
Message-ID: | 15132.1153279448@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting; presumably you'd need to open
> another client connection to send the "status report" message to a
> backend (since a backend will not be polling its input socket during
> query execution). That just seems like the wrong approach -- stashing a
> backend's current status into shared memory sounds more promising, IMHO,
> and won't require changes to the FE/BE protocol.
Yeah, I was about to make the same comment. The new support for query
status in shared memory should make it pretty cheap to update a progress
indicator there, and then it'd be trivial to expose the indicator to
other backends via pg_stat_activity.
Sending the progress info directly to the connected client implies
protocol changes (fairly trivial ones) and client changes (possibly
highly nontrivial ones --- think about how you'd get the info out
through something like a webserver application with multiple layers
of software in the way). In practice, if a query is taking long
enough for this feature to be interesting, making another connection and
looking to see what's happening is not a problem, and it's likely to be
the most practical way anyway for many clients.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-19 03:32:34 | Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-19 02:52:02 | Re: modular pg_regress.sh |