From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY] |
Date: | 2019-02-22 22:10:36 |
Message-ID: | 20190222221036.GA18589@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hmm, looks like a very bare-bones support for hash indexes does not
require a lot of code, and gives a clear picture (you can sit all night
watching the numbers go up, instead of biting your fingernails wondering
if it'll be completed by dawn.) This part isn't 100% done -- it we
would better to have ambuildphasename support.
(I'm a bit confused about phase 5 not reporting anything for hash
indexes in CIC, though. That's part is supposed to be AM agnostic.)
I think it was a mistake to define the progress constants in one header
file commands/progress.h and the associated functions in pgstat.h. I
think it would be better to move the function decls to
commands/progress.h.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
progress-hash.patch | text/x-diff | 1.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-22 22:15:47 | Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-02-22 21:54:23 | Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY] |