On 3/10/17 1:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-03-10 02:11:18 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Perhaps instead of adding more clutter to \dvS we could just have a SRF for
>> now.
>
> I don't see that as clutter, it's useful information, and keeping it
> discoverable is good, not bad.
If we keep adding status reporting commands at some point it's going to
get unwieldy. Though, if they were in their own schema...
>> At over 2800 rows currently, you're not going to notice one more
>> addition to \dfS.
>
> I think it's hard to design a good SRF for this. Because the fields for
> different types of progress are different / empty, you can't just
> trivially return them as rows. You'd have to do some EAV like
> 'command, field_name1, field_value1, ...' type of thing - not
> particularly pretty / easy to use.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting a single SRF for everything. Hopefully users
will eventually figure out a good formula to drive a "progress bar" for
each type of monitor, which is what you really want anyway (at least 99%
of the time). If we got there we could have a single view that gave the
% complete for every command that was providing feedback. If someone
wanted details they could hit the individual SRF.
--
Jim Nasby, Chief Data Architect, OpenSCG
http://OpenSCG.com
