Hi Amit, Thank you for updating the patch. > -----Original Message----- > From: Amit Langote [mailto:langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp] > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:09 PM > To: SPS ポクレ ヴィナヤック(三技術) <poku...@pm.nttdata.co.jp>; > robertmh...@gmail.com > Cc: horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp; amitlangot...@gmail.com; pgsql- > hack...@postgresql.org; SPS 坂野 昌平(三技術) <ban...@nttdata.co.jp> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. > > > Hi Vinayak, > > Thanks for the quick review! > > On 2016/03/10 16:22, poku...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote: > >> On 2016/03/10 14:29, Amit Langote wrote: > >> Updated patches attached. > > In 0002- > > [ snip ] > > > I think we need to use datid instead of datname. > > Robert added datid in pg_stat_get_progress_info() and we are using that > function here. > > +values[1] = ObjectIdGetDatum(beentry->st_databaseid); > > [ snip ] > > > So I think it's better to report datid not datname. > > The definition of view is simply like: > > +CREATE VIEW pg_stat_progress_vacuum AS > > + SELECT > > + S.pid AS pid, > > + S.datid AS datid, > > + S.relid AS relid, > > + CASE S.param1 > > + WHEN 1 THEN 'scanning heap' > > + WHEN 2 THEN 'vacuuming indexes' > > + WHEN 3 THEN 'vacuuming heap' > > + WHEN 4 THEN 'cleanup' > > + ELSE 'unknown phase' > > + END AS processing_phase, > > + S.param2 AS total_heap_blocks, > > + S.param3 AS current_heap_block, > > + S.param4 AS total_index_blocks, > > + S.param5 AS index_blocks_done, > > + S.param6 AS index_vacuum_count, > > + CASE S.param2 > > + WHEN 0 THEN round(100.0, 2) > > + ELSE round((S.param3 + 1) * 100.0 / S.param2, 2) > > + END AS percent_done > > + FROM pg_stat_get_progress_info('VACUUM') AS S; > > > > So maybe we can add datname as separate column in > pg_stat_progress_vacuum, I think it's not required only datid is sufficient. > > Any comment? > > Why do you think showing the name may be unacceptable? Wouldn't that > be a little more user-friendly? Though maybe, we can follow the > pg_stat_activity style and have both instead, as you suggest. Attached > updated version does that. +1 I think reporting both (datid and datname) is more user-friendly. Thank you.
Regards, Vinayak Pokale -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
