On 2015/12/01 16:25, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:10:44 -0700 (MST), Vinayak <vinpok...@gmail.com> wrote >> Thanks for the v7. >> Please check the comment below. >> -Table name in the vacuum progress >> >> + snprintf(progress_message, PROGRESS_MESSAGE_LENGTH, "%s.%s", >> schemaname,relname); >> >> In the vacuum progress, column table_name is showing first 30 characters of >> table name. > > Yeah, it is actually restricted in that length. But if we allow > the buffer to store whole the qualified names, it will need 64 * > 2 + 1 +1 = 130 bytes * 10 1300 bytes for each beentry... It might > be acceptable by others, but I don't think that is preferable.. > > Separating namespace and relation name as below reduces the > required length of the field but 62 bytes is still too long for > most of the information and in turn too short for longer messages > in some cases.
As done in the patch, the table name is stored in one of the slots of st_progress_message which has the width limit of PROGRESS_MESSAGE_LENGTH bytes. Whereas users of pgstat_report_progress interface could make sure that strings of their choosing to be stored in st_progress_param slots are within the PROGRESS_MESSAGE_LENGTH limit, the same cannot be ensured for the table name. Maybe, the table name is a different kind of information than other reported parameters that it could be treated specially. How about a separate st_* member, say, st_command_target[2*NAMDATALEN+1] for the table name? It would be reported using a separate interface, say, pgstat_report_command_target() once the name is determined. Moreover, subsequent pgstat_report_progress() invocations need not copy the table name needlessly as part of copying argument values to st_progress_param (which is a separate suggestion in its own right though). Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers