| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2021-02-24 07:46:57 |
| Message-ID: | YDYEcUrs9z5Tipa+@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:27:24AM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Note, I'm happy to be proven wrong here, in which case I don't
> disagree, but according to my limited knowledge, these outputs should
> be stable.
I am planning to look more at 0001 and 0003, but for now I have been
looking at 0002 which is interesting on its own.
+ <structname>pg_stat_progress_vacuum</structname> view. Backends running
+ <command>VACUUM</command> with the <literal>FULL</literal> option report
+ progress in the <structname>pg_stat_progress_cluster</structname> instead.
You have missed one "view" after pg_stat_progress_cluster here.
Except that, this stuff looks fine. So I'd like to apply it if there
are no objections.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-02-24 07:53:03 | Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-02-24 07:45:27 | Re: Is Recovery actually paused? |