Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:13:16 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tatsuro Yamada <yamada.tatsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor
Message-ID: <20190306151316.GA7143@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYr99tHCSunH7-XCBPH-ZqFdK9syOsWiCfV6PyBHO4DxA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Mar-06, Robert Haas wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:03 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Is that really an issue?  I think progress reporting -- at least with
> the current infrastructure -- is only ever going to be possible for
> utility commands, not queries.  And those really shouldn't have very
> many sorts going on at once.

Well, I don't think it is, but I thought it was worth pointing out
explicitly.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services