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

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

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to