On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Updated versions attached. > > * changed st_progress_param to int64 and so did the argument of > pgstat_progress_update_param(). Likewise changed param1..param10 of > pg_stat_get_progress_info()'s output columns to bigint. > > * Added back the Oid field st_command_target and corresponding function > pgstat_progress_set_command_target(Oid).
What the heck do we have an SQL-visible pg_stat_reset_local_progress() for? Surely if we ever need that, it's a bug. I think pgstat_progress_update_param() should Assert(index >= 0 && index < N_PROGRESS_PARAM). But I'd rename N_PROGRESS_PARAM to PGSTAT_NUM_PROGRESS_PARAM. Regarding "XXX - privilege check is maybe dubious" - I think the privilege check here should match pg_stat_activity. If it does, there's nothing dubious about that IMHO. This patch has been worked on by so many people and reviewed by so many people that I can't keep track of who should be credited when it gets committed. Could someone provide a list of author(s) and reviewer(s)? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers