Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 08:10:35 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Report index currently being vacuumed in pg_stat_progress_vacuum
Message-ID: <aoeJa9Ap4_MyFX3_@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CALj2ACUgwSchK6jQ2CdKLBWUADTOE_zKdTff2Zg3E6hOuXKv-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0vh8cNV0DuTuebCfi=XVkQhYD5TWUx7+DHSE1D56c88-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACU3+seeZKAsH=d_LpVEVRfafnvqDmj3czFf1daOTbXVyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0t2vArQ3EpWSqSQekROuKeaonvgOz=Czkp4Q0tS_krscQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0sw8ZuAYt+bJ_VvJvcHVKe+=1tstC7oqAqUye9_3Ta6gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACXhLVJh0OeN5W61_UvhyBxH3k98ffXhnRPYr8NsNbMZSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <an6P_WQNCM4P843q@paquier.xyz>
 <CAA5RZ0tbkiEpD0ZBL+ACKO8o5mDkZmZq0PAdABqQt2nNr8MKjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACWWf-zDXpXDZf5fscPq_fwVY=NX+7w4JcObcgXuY9=h+Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4Lzw9lMO4cusQWoa"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALj2ACWWf-zDXpXDZf5fscPq_fwVY=NX+7w4JcObcgXuY9=h+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aoeJa9Ap4_MyFX3_%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk

--4Lzw9lMO4cusQWoa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 07:37:00PM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I don't think a separate view is the right approach at least for two
> reasons. One, to know the progress of a vacuum one has to query two
> views and relate them. Two, since the leader itself participates in
> vacuuming indexes alongside workers (and will also for parallel heap
> vacuum), splitting the same command's progress into two views adds
> complexity. Keeping everything in a single view with one row per
> worker (as discussed upthread) is simpler. Some fields would be null
> on worker rows, but documenting this should be sufficient. That said,
> I'm open to hear more thoughts on this.

Having a single progress view feels like the natural approach here,
for both the leader and the workers.  The leader triggers the
existence of the workers, but both leader and workers may finish by
doing the same job as there could be usually little meaning for a
leader to stand idle, waiting for all the workers to do the work.
Such choices are implementation-agnostic, of course; we should not
lock ourselves.
--
Michael

--4Lzw9lMO4cusQWoa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=b31p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4Lzw9lMO4cusQWoa--