On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 10:15, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com> wrote: > > Hi, > Patch v3 follows advice from Matthias (status field has been dropped).
Could you argue why you think that this should be added to the pg_stat_progress_copy view? Again, the progress reporting subsystem is built to "report the progress of certain commands during command execution". Why do you think we need to go further than that and allow some commands to retain their report even after they've finished executing?
Of note: The contents of >st_progress_param are only defined and guaranteed to be consistent when the reporting command is running. Even if no other progress-reporting command is running other commands or processes in that backend may call functions that update the fields with somewhat arbitrary values when no progress-reporting command is actively running, thus corrupting the information for the progress reporting view.
Could you please provide some insights on why you think that we should change the progress reporting guts to accomodate something that it was not built for?
It would be desirable to see the relation for the COPY command.
With the updated patch, I think the interference from other commands in progress reporting has been prevented (see logic inside pg_stat_get_progress_info).
