Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2024-05-08 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:07:15AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I think you're hoping for too much. The progress reporting > infrastructure is fundamentally designed around the idea that there > can only be one progress-reporting operation in progress at a time. > For COPY, that is, I believe,

Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2024-05-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:12 PM Michael Paquier wrote: > FWIW, I'm rather annoyed by the fact that we rely on the ParseState to > decide if reporting should happen or not. file_fdw tells, even if > that's accidental, that status reporting can be useful if working on a > single table. So,

Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2024-05-07 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 07:27:54AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > This didn't get fixed for v16, and it seems unlikely that it'll be > addressed in back branches. > > But while I was reviewing forgotten threads, it occurred to me to raise > the issue in time to fix it for v17. Thanks for the

Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2024-05-07 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 02:45:40AM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > > Would you do anything different in the master branch, with no > > compatibility constraints ? I think the progress reporting would still > > be limited to one row per backend, not one per CopyFrom(). > > I think I would

Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2023-01-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 02:45:40AM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > Let me think about it. I think it would work, but I'm not sure that's > a great option - it adds backend state that we would need to add > cleanup handles for. But then again, COPY ... TO could use TRIGGER to > trigger actual

Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2023-01-20 Thread Matthias van de Meent
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 at 02:28, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 01:51:28AM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 06:47, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > > > pg_stat_progress_copy was added in v14 (8a4f618e7, 9d2d45700). > > > > > > But if a command JOINs

Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2023-01-20 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 01:51:28AM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 06:47, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > pg_stat_progress_copy was added in v14 (8a4f618e7, 9d2d45700). > > > > But if a command JOINs file_fdw tables, the progress report gets bungled > > up. This will

Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2023-01-20 Thread Matthias van de Meent
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 at 02:04, Ted Yu wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:51 PM Matthias van de Meent > wrote: >> >> Attached a patch that solves this specific issue in a >> binary-compatible way. I'm not super happy about relying on behavior >> of callers of BeginCopyFrom (assuming that

Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2023-01-20 Thread Ted Yu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:51 PM Matthias van de Meent < boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 06:47, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > pg_stat_progress_copy was added in v14 (8a4f618e7, 9d2d45700). > > > > But if a command JOINs file_fdw tables, the progress report gets

Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2023-01-20 Thread Matthias van de Meent
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 06:47, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > pg_stat_progress_copy was added in v14 (8a4f618e7, 9d2d45700). > > But if a command JOINs file_fdw tables, the progress report gets bungled > up. This will warn/assert during file_fdw tests. I don't know what to do with that other than

bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs

2023-01-18 Thread Justin Pryzby
pg_stat_progress_copy was added in v14 (8a4f618e7, 9d2d45700). But if a command JOINs file_fdw tables, the progress report gets bungled up. This will warn/assert during file_fdw tests. diff --git a/src/backend/utils/activity/backend_progress.c b/src/backend/utils/activity/backend_progress.c