Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

On 2015/12/03 13:47, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:48:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote
>>
>> Actually, do we really need to have the table name as a string at all
>> here? Why not just report the table OID? Surely whoever wants to check
>> the progress can connect to the database in question to figure out the
>> table name.
>
> I thought the same thing but found that the same kind of view
> (say, pg_stat_user_tables) has separate relanme and shcemaname in
> string (not a qualified name, though).
>
> Apart from the representation of the relation, OID would be
> better as a field in beentry.

I wonder if the field should be a standalone field or as yet another
st_progress_* array?

IMHO, there are some values that a command would report that should not be
mixed with pgstat_report_progress()'s interface. That is, things like
command ID/name, command target (table name or OID) should not be mixed
with actual progress parameters like num_pages, num_indexes (integers),
processing "phase" (string) that are shared via st_progress_* fields. The
first of them already has its own reporting interface in proposed patch
in the form of pgstat_report_activity_flag(). Although, we must be careful
to choose these interfaces carefully.

Thanks,
Amit