From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan A&PS Delivery)" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting for pg_basebackup, in the server side |
Date: | 2020-03-19 02:45:36 |
Message-ID: | 7b48842f-887e-5535-6034-a7cefa47dc8f@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/03/19 11:32, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:24 AM Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2020-Mar-19, Amit Langote wrote:
>>
>>> Magnus' idea of checking the values in pg_stat_get_progress_info() to
>>> determine whether to return NULL seems fine to me.
So you think that the latest patch is good enough?
>>> We will need to
>>> update the documentation of st_progress_param, because it currently
>>> says:
>>>
>>> * ...but the meaning of each element in the
>>> * st_progress_param array is command-specific.
>>> */
>>> ProgressCommandType st_progress_command;
>>> Oid st_progress_command_target;
>>> int64 st_progress_param[PGSTAT_NUM_PROGRESS_PARAM];
>>> } PgBackendStatus;
>>>
>>> If we are to define -1 in st_progress_param[] as NULL to the users,
>>> that must be mentioned here.
>>
>> Hmm, why -1? It seems like a value that we might want to use for other
>> purposes in other params. Maybe INT64_MIN is a better choice?
>
> Yes, maybe.
I don't think that we need to define the specific value like -1 as NULL globally.
Which value should be used for that purpose may vary by each command. Only for
pg_stat_progress_basebackup.backup_total, IMO using -1 as special value for
NULL is not so bad idea.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-03-19 02:50:51 | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-19 02:41:24 | Re: type of some table storage params on doc |