Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Ilya Gladyshev <ilya(dot)v(dot)gladyshev(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables
Date: 2023-03-26 14:08:41
Message-ID: ZCBR6QfrsW2Vl1l6@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I pushed 0001 with some cosmetic changes (for instance, trying to
> make the style of the doc entries for partitions_total/partitions_done
> match the rest of their table).

Thanks.

> I'm not touching 0002 or 0003, because I think they're fundamentally
> a bad idea. Progress reporting is inherently inexact, because it's

Nobody could disagree that it's inexact. The assertions are for minimal
sanity tests and consistency. Like if "total" is set multiple times (as
in this patch), or if a progress value goes backwards. Anyway the
assertions exposed two other issues that would need to be fixed before
the assertions themselves could be proposed.

--
Justin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2023-03-26 14:43:21 Time to move pg_test_timing to measure in nanoseconds
Previous Message vignesh C 2023-03-26 14:06:38 Re: Support logical replication of DDLs