Sorry, I misunderstood the meaning of PgStat_*.

At Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:41:04 +0900, Amit Langote 
<> wrote in <>
> > As far as I understand it, the basic reason why this patch exists is
> > to allow a DBA to have a hint of the progress of a VACUUM that may be
> > taking minutes, or say hours, which is something we don't have now. So
> > it seems perfectly fine to me to report this information
> > asynchronously with a bit of lag. Why would we need so much precision
> > in the report?
> Sorry, I didn't mean to overstate this requirement. I agree precise
> real-time reporting of progress info is not such a stringent requirement
> from the patch. The point regarding whether we should storm the collector
> with progress info messages still holds, IMHO.

Taking a few seconds interval between each messages would be
sufficient. I personaly think that gettimeofday() per processing
every buffer (or few buffers) is not so heavy-weight but I
suppose there's not such a consensus here. However,
IsCheckpointOnSchedule does that per writing one buffer.

vacuum_delay_point() seems to be a reasonable point to check the
interval and send stats since it would be designed to be called
with the interval also appropriate for this purpose.


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to