Re: [PATCH] Simple progress reporting for COPY command - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josef Šimánek
Subject Re: [PATCH] Simple progress reporting for COPY command
Date
Msg-id CAFp7QwqFkrRWv6BY=prTVWWvYY+O0=Bt+kE978twY7vAdf_GeA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Simple progress reporting for COPY command  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Simple progress reporting for COPY command  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
st 6. 1. 2021 v 22:44 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> napsal:
>
> On 1/5/21 11:02 AM, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > I'm attaching the whole patch since commitfest failed to ingest the
> > last incremental on CI.
> >
>
> Yeah, the whole patch needs to be attached for the commitfest tester to
> work correctly - it can't apply pieces from multiple messages, etc.
>
> Anyway, I pushed this last version of patch, after a couple more tweaks,
> mainly to the docs - one place used pg_stat_copy_progress, the section
> was not indexed properly, and so on.
>
> I see Matthias proposed to change "lines" to "tuples" - I only saw the
> message after pushing, but I probably wouldn't make that change anyway.
> The CSV docs seem to talk about lines, newlines etc. so it seems fine.
> If not, we can change that.
>
> One more question, though - I now realize the lines_processed ignores
> rows skipped because of BEFORE INSERT triggers. I wonder if that's the
> right thing to do? Imagine you know the number of lines in a file. You
> can't really use (lines_processed / total_lines) to measure progress,
> because that may ignore many "skipped" rows. So maybe this should be
> changed to count all rows. OTOH we still have bytes_processed.

I think that should be fixed. It is called "lines_processed" not
"lines_inserted". I'll take a look.

>
> regards
>
> --
> Tomas Vondra
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Prevent printing "next step instructions" in initdb and pg_upgrade
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_rewind restore_command issue in PG12