On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 21:43, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/11/30 15:23, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 06:53, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >> However, this issue already exists without the proposed patch.
> >> Since file_fdw already reports progress partially, querying multiple
> >> file_fdw tables can lead to inaccurate or confusing progress reports.
> >> You can even observe this when analyzing a file_fdw table and also
> >> when copying to the table with a trigger that executes progress-reporting
> >> commands.
> >>
> >> So, I don’t think this issue should block the proposed patch.
> >> In fact, progress reporting is already flawed in these scenarios,
> >> regardless of whether the patch is applied.
>
> On second thought, supporting progress tracking for COPY used by file_fdw
> could increase the chances of multiple commands being tracked simultaneously
> by a single backend. This means the command progress view might show
> incorrect results more often.
>
> As I mentioned before, this issue already exists, but it currently
> only happens in rare cases. I don’t think the fact that the issue
> already exists is a good reason to introduce more, and likely more common,
> scenarios where it could occur.
>
> With that in mind, I'm thinking of withdrawing this patch for now.
I've updated the status to "withdrawn." Feel free to add it again
anytime if you change your mind.
Regards,
Vignesh
