Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:18:29 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Rahila Syed <rahila.syed@2ndquadrant.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]
Message-ID: <20190311191829.GA30006@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+TgmoYF4uzqP+S5OQ84S-dqkHHcP7qv=4_ha8ONviPHc0q_sw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Mar-11, Robert Haas wrote:

> I don't think that I much like this (3 of 8) and (2 of 5) stuff.  It's
> inconsistent with what we've got already and it doesn't add much.
> Someone who wants to know which phase it is can look at the underlying
> numbers directly instead of going through the view, but most people
> probably won't care, and given that the phases may be of dramatically
> unequal length, I don't think it's adding much.
> 
> Another reason why I think this is a bad idea is that there may be
> some operations where we don't transit all the phases in all cases;
> the pending patch for CLUSTER progress reporting works like that.

What part of it don't you like?  Is it the fact that we have phase
numbers in the phase name?  Is it the fact that we count total phases?
Is it that we have two numbers being current (phase + subphase)?

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