From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
Date: | 2021-12-20 18:37:05 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzmz4Z+UYqRgYHuyxYHha4Gn-aBprydmG0n+m6J2J_ABSA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:10 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> nitpick: Shouldn't index_blks_scanned be index_blks_vacuumed? IMO it
> is more analogous to heap_blks_vacuumed.
+1.
> This will tell us which indexes are currently being vacuumed and the
> current progress of those operations, but it doesn't tell us which
> indexes have already been vacuumed or which ones are pending vacuum.
VACUUM will process a table's indexes in pg_class OID order (outside
of parallel VACUUM, I suppose). See comments about sort order above
RelationGetIndexList().
Anyway, it might be useful to add ordinal numbers to each index, that
line up with this processing/OID order. It would also be reasonable to
display the same number in log_autovacuum* (and VACUUM VERBOSE)
per-index output, to reinforce the idea. Note that we don't
necessarily display a distinct line for each distinct index in this
log output, which is why including the ordinal number there makes
sense.
> I wish option #1 was cleaner, because I think it would be really nice
> to have all this information in a single row.
I do too. I agree with the specific points you raise in your remarks
about what you've called options #2 and #3, but those options still
seem unappealing to me.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-12-20 18:50:37 | Re: sqlsmith: ERROR: XX000: bogus varno: 2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-20 18:13:51 | Re: sqlsmith: ERROR: XX000: bogus varno: 2 |