Horton

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-04-10T22:34:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

On 2023-04-10 08:14:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 12:01:17PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Why would it mean that? Parallel workers are updated together with the leader,
> > so there's no compatibility issue?
> 
> My point is that the callback system would still need to be maintained
> in a stable branch, and, while useful, it could be used for much more
> than it is originally written.  I guess that this could be used in
> custom nodes with their own custom parallel nodes.

Hm, I'm somewhat doubtful that that's something we should encourage. And
doubtful we'd get it right without a concrete use case at hand to verify the
design.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Commits

  1. Report index vacuum progress.

  2. Add new parallel message type to progress reporting.

  3. Remove MaxBackends variable in favor of GetMaxBackends() function.