Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:25:35 -0600
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Ilya Gladyshev <ilya.v.gladyshev@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Subject: Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables
Message-ID: <20230118152535.GZ9837@telsasoft.com>
References: <039564d234fc3d014c555a7ee98be69a9e724836.camel@gmail.com>
 <20221217143002.GR1153@telsasoft.com>
 <20230108164849.GA21731@telsasoft.com>
 <865a4ff239b6824fd5bbdd4a972390d1e95144b4.camel@gmail.com>
 <31ee17da-8705-9afc-9451-5374a5e51aff@enterprisedb.com>
 <20230117205904.GW9837@telsasoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230117205904.GW9837@telsasoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230118152535.GZ9837%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

TBH, I think the best approach is what I did in:
0001-report-top-parent-progress-for-CREATE-INDEX.txt

That's a minimal patch, ideal for backpatching.

..which defines/clarifies that the progress reporting is only for
*direct* children.  That avoids the need to change any data structures,
and it's what was probably intended by the original patch, which doesn't
seem to have considered intermediate partitioned tables.

I think it'd be fine to re-define that in some future release, to allow
showing indirect children (probably only "leaves", and not intermediate
partitioned tables).  Or "total_bytes" or other global progress.

-- 
Justin