From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tatsuro Yamada <yamada.tatsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 22:03:38 -0300
Message-ID: <20190306010338.GA20820@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Tgmob4Xjx7mV0mmcX-r9Swf2nyhfTpMDJtgJv06JUYLYmKZQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2019-Mar-04, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:38 AM Tatsuro Yamada
> <yamada.tatsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > === Discussion points ===
> >
> > - Progress counter for "3. sorting tuples" phase
> > - Should we add pgstat_progress_update_param() in tuplesort.c like a
> > "trace_sort"?
> > Thanks to Peter Geoghegan for the useful advice!
>
> How would we avoid an abstraction violation?
The theory embodied in my patch at https://postgr.es/m/20190304204607.GA15946@alvherre.pgsql
is that we don't; tuplesort.c functions (index.c's IndexBuildHeapScan in
my case) would get a boolean parameter to indicate whether to update
some params or not -- the param number(s) to update are supposed to be
generic in the sense that it's not part of any individual command's
implementation (PROGRESS_SCAN_BLOCKS_DONE for what you call "blks
scanned", PROGRESS_SCAN_BLOCKS_TOTAL for "blks total"), but rather
defined by the "progress update provider" (index.c or tuplesort.c).
One, err, small issue with that idea is that we need the param numbers
not to conflict for any "progress update providers" that are to be used
simultaneously by any command.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, yamada.tatsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp, 9erthalion6@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, jeff.janes@gmail.com, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor
In-Reply-To: <20190306010338.GA20820@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox