From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, 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 02:32:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqHinCPZMnBhOOzoyOpTDKqnDSEiKc1Xjfr3Y4SRNFrMSQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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. 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.
--
Thank you,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2020-03-19 02:34:25 | Re: Add A Glossary |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-19 02:26:17 | Re: pgsql: walreceiver uses a temporary replication slot by default |