| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, vinayak <Pokale_Vinayak_q3(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ANALYZE command progress checker |
| Date: | 2017-03-07 20:27:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYiWf6PSj4krGH0u3vkVc9vVd0b8tZuUziG5Ng0QPjvvA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-03-01 10:20:41 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:45:40AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > On 2/28/17 04:24, vinayak wrote:
>> > > The view provides the information of analyze command progress details as
>> > > follows
>> > > postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_analyze
>> > > View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_analyze"
>> >
>> > Hmm, do we want a separate "progress" system view for every kind of
>> > command? What if someone comes up with a progress checker for CREATE
>> > INDEX, REINDEX, CLUSTER, etc.?
>
> I don't think that'd be that bad, otherwise the naming of the fields is
> complicated.
+1.
I suppose if it gets really out of control we might have to rethink,
but 2 is not 50, and having appropriate column names is worth a lot.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-07 20:32:16 | Re: Small fix to postgresql.conf.sample's comment on max_parallel_workers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-07 20:24:55 | Re: Enabling parallelism for queries coming from SQL or other PL functions |