Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYr99tHCSunH7-XCBPH-ZqFdK9syOsWiCfV6PyBHO4DxA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:03 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> One, err, small issue with that idea is that we need the param numbers
> not to conflict for any "progress update providers" that are to be used
> simultaneously by any command.

Is that really an issue?  I think progress reporting -- at least with
the current infrastructure -- is only ever going to be possible for
utility commands, not queries.  And those really shouldn't have very
many sorts going on at once.

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: openLogOff is not needed anymore
Next
From: Georgios Kokolatos
Date:
Subject: Re: Tighten error control for OpenTransientFile/CloseTransientFile