Horton

Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahila.syed@2ndquadrant.com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: 2019-03-28T15:27:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 14:56, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:


> I have not reinstated phase numbers; I have Rahila's positive vote for
> them.  Do I hear any more votes on this issue?
>

If there is a specific technical issue, I'd like to understand that more.
If it is just a usability preference, then I say we should have numbers.

Numbering is natural for people. If we say "It's currently doing phase
XYZ", they will say "Is that the 3rd phase?", we'll say "No, actually the
5th", and then they will say "Why didn't you just number them?"

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Report progress of REINDEX operations

  2. Report progress of CREATE INDEX operations

  3. Fix error handling of readdir() port implementation on first file lookup