| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
| Date: | 2015-07-23 19:43:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob9e4izmGBxJsBMLePCuMFUbLi6WOQAShfUaxm08e_b9w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> If we want to expose that level of detail, I think either JSON or arrays
> would make more sense, so we're not stuck with a limited amount of info.
> Perhaps DDL would be OK with the numbers you suggested, but
> https://www.pgcon.org/2013/schedule/events/576.en.html would not, and I
> think wanting query progress is much more common.
You need to restrict the amount of info, because you've got to
preallocate enough shared memory to store all the data that somebody
might report.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-07-23 19:53:49 | Re: Restore-reliability mode |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-07-23 19:40:31 | Re: Autonomous Transaction is back |