Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables

Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 06:25:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree that adding such a field to IndexStmt would be a very bad idea.
>> However, adding another parameter to DefineIndex doesn't seem like a
>> problem.

> It's a problem since this is a bug and it's desirable to backpatch a
> fix, right ?

I do not think this is important enough to justify a back-patch.

> Incrementing by 0 sounds terrible, since someone who has intermediate
> partitioned tables is likely to always see 0% done.

How so? The counter will increase after there's some actual work done,
ie building an index. If there's no indexes to build then it hardly
matters, because the command will complete in very little time.

> And incrementing PARTITIONS_DONE by 1 could lead to bogus progress
> reporting with "N_done > N_Total" if an intermediate partitioned table
> had no leaf partitions at all.

Well, we could fix that if we made TOTAL be the total number of
descendants rather than just the leaves ;-). But I think not
incrementing is probably better.

regards, tom lane