From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josef Šimánek <josef(dot)simanek(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting |
Date: | 2021-02-18 15:46:58 |
Message-ID: | CAEze2Wi3gmq1M+nyexfOHZ_wXYBP7B+9eoQMKGWY+7c2qJ0n8g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Thank you all for the suggestions. PFA version 8 of the patchset, in
which I have applied most of your comments. Unless explicitly named
below, I have applied the suggestions.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> - The blocks in copyfrom.cc/copyto.c should be reworked - I don't think
> we do this in our codebase.
I saw this being used in (re)index progress reporting, that's where I
took inspiration from. It has been fixed in the attached version.
> - I fir the "io_target" name misleading, because in some cases it's
> actually the *source*.
Yes, I was also not quite happy with this, but couldn't find a better
one at the point of writing the initial patchset. Would
"io_operations", "io_port", "operates_through" or "through" maybe be
better?
With regards,
Matthias van de Meent
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v8-0001-Add-progress-reported-components-for-COPY-progres.patch | application/x-patch | 11.9 KB |
v8-0002-Add-backlinks-to-progress-reporting-documentation.patch | application/x-patch | 7.4 KB |
v8-0003-Add-copy-progress-reporting-regression-tests.patch | application/x-patch | 5.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-02-18 16:00:28 | cursor sensitivity misunderstanding |
Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2021-02-18 15:01:39 | Re: Problem with accessing TOAST data in stored procedures |