From: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)ohmu(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Mika Eloranta <mel(at)ohmu(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_basebackup: progress report max once per second |
Date: | 2014-02-03 03:14:13 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoBGRcHjGirdX_v979-HGGB8wrjcphgnFiFYz4MtRBTWzw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)ohmu(dot)fi> wrote:
> 31.01.2014 10:59, Sawada Masahiko kirjoitti:
>
> I think the idea in the new progress_report() call (with force == true) is
> to make sure that there is at least one progress_report call that actually
> writes the progress report. Otherwise the final report may go missing if it
> gets suppressed by the time-based check. The force argument as used in the
> new call skips that check.
>
I understood.
I have two concerns as follows.
- I think that there is possible that progress_report() is called
frequently ( less than 1 second).
That is, progress_report() is called with force == true after
progress_report was called with force == false and execute this
function.
- progress_report() is called even if -P option is disabled. I'm
concerned about that is cause of performance degradation.
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2014-02-03 03:15:31 | Re: inherit support for foreign tables |
Previous Message | Ashesh Vashi | 2014-02-03 03:10:27 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |