From: | Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
Date: | 2021-12-23 10:49:59 |
Message-ID: | 9e24df8d-4a74-2be3-d7fc-00d7093cd252@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21/12/2021 00:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> * Some index AMs don't work like nbtree and GiST in that they cannot
> do their scan sequentially -- they have to do something like a
> logical/keyspace order scan instead, which is *totally* different to
> heapam (not just a bit different). There is no telling how many times
> each page will be accessed in these other index AMs, and in what
> order, even under optimal conditions. We should arguably not even try
> to provide any granular progress information here, since it'll
> probably be too messy.
Maybe we could add callbacks into AM interface for
send/receive/representation implementation of progress?
So AM would define a set of parameters to send into stat collector and
show to users.
--
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-12-23 10:51:58 | Re: Logical replication timeout problem |
Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-12-23 10:47:06 | Re: Throttling WAL inserts when the standby falls behind more than the configured replica_lag_in_bytes |