On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 2:34 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra > > <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> > >> - The blocks in copyfrom.cc/copyto.c should be reworked - I don't think > >> we do this in our codebase. > > > > I saw this being used in (re)index progress reporting, that's where I > > took inspiration from. It has been fixed in the attached version. > > > > Hmmm, good point. I haven't looked at the other places reporting > progress and I only ever saw this pattern in old code. I kinda dislike > these blocks, but admittedly that's rather subjective view. So if other > similar places do this when reporting progress, this probably should > too. What's your opinion on this?
Actually in the code base the style of that variable declaration and usage of pgstat_progress_update_multi_param is a mix. For instance, in lazy_scan_heap, ReindexRelationConcurrently, the variables are declared at the start of the function. And in _bt_spools_heapscan, index_build, validate_index, perform_base_backup, the variables are declared within a separate block. IMO, we can have the arrays declared at the start of the functions i.e. the way it's done in v8-0001, because we can extend them for reporting some other parameter(maybe in future). > >> - I fir the "io_target" name misleading, because in some cases it's > >> actually the *source*. > > > > Yes, I was also not quite happy with this, but couldn't find a better > > one at the point of writing the initial patchset. Would > > "io_operations", "io_port", "operates_through" or "through" maybe be > > better? > > > > No idea. Let's see if someone has a better proposal ... For COPY TO the name "source_type" column and for COPY FROM the name "destination_type" makes sense. To have a combined column name for both, how about naming that column as "io_type"? With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
