Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:18:45 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro.yamada.tf@nttcom.co.jp>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: progress report for ANALYZE
Message-ID: <20190708181845.GA14186@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+TgmoYFxXTaQErccaV+z6+kuNDFY64H+eDRPXkyh_JG=uZArQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jul-08, Robert Haas wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:29 AM Tatsuro Yamada
> <tatsuro.yamada.tf@nttcom.co.jp> wrote:
> > 17520|13599|postgres|16387|f|16387|scanning table|4425|4425
> > 17520|13599|postgres|16387|f|16387|analyzing sample|0|0
> > 17520|13599|postgres|16387|f|16387||0|0  <-- Is it Okay??
> 
> Why do we zero out the block numbers when we switch phases?  The
> CREATE INDEX progress reporting patch does that kind of thing too, and
> it seems like poor behavior to me.

Yeah, I got the impression that that was determined to be the desirable
behavior, so I made it do that, but I'm not really happy about it
either.  We're not too late to change the CREATE INDEX behavior, but
let's discuss what is it that we want.

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