Subject: Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
 =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zZWYgxaBpbcOhbmVr?= <josef.simanek@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
References: 
 <CAEze2WiOcgdH4aQA8NtZq-4dgvnJzp8PohdeKchPkhMY-jWZXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACW-nY0TAQRzUyKmomwD0udobb53iopFDTn2NytwcSR07w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2Wh753JM+W25grkM30GUXvE_bjHVEJdkdvhnL8SthNSJVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACUCASUO9Le2Lq6d_gEdHtVEH6EFG19R-kKTWtRf2TmnVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2Wi2BS12wj3ZggQwcacW8e9inruaSZpfbWZ40O3Xp_Q-aA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFp7QwqKwZikq6fdOC7+EShw+ozWzNo63e4PFatcFvAGH4qaag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACWTEPRJY72NWuwj9eL3=pfx=KVXq4srpe-EwNPO7GKvBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2WiTSjepqc-JO29yaydeXdgXeqxJ1Hi-DAMvfzKqnnje2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2Wh_ohsJuRQ7kkCnfZWNqHXLsJCFsKzRauoGNeNgG=eosg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACWNo1jSQDnGTx+v9jR27BOen59sWdp+j+JrWwuFuhB8Rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEze2WhbvkoSm6zs7Jaupe+Ln0ttP6m1Fb3WLodo8-SdTxq6WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <de9df4db-a8e8-ec5f-9540-c5834ab76345@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAEze2Wi3gmq1M+nyexfOHZ_wXYBP7B+9eoQMKGWY+7c2qJ0n8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Message-ID: <0eb0a7e5-031d-51b6-b1c7-9804915d44f2@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:03:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEze2Wi3gmq1M+nyexfOHZ_wXYBP7B+9eoQMKGWY+7c2qJ0n8g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2/18/21 4:46 PM, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> 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.
> 

Thanks.

> 
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.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.
> 

Hmmm, good point. I haven't looked at the other places reporting
progress and I only ever saw this pattern in old code. I kinda dislike
these blocks, but admittedly that's rather subjective view. So if other
similar places do this when reporting progress, this probably should
too. What's your opinion on this?

>> - 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?
> 

No idea. Let's see if someone has a better proposal ...


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company