On 2019-Mar-04, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:38 AM Tatsuro Yamada > <yamada.tats...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > === Discussion points === > > > > - Progress counter for "3. sorting tuples" phase > > - Should we add pgstat_progress_update_param() in tuplesort.c like a > > "trace_sort"? > > Thanks to Peter Geoghegan for the useful advice! > > How would we avoid an abstraction violation? The theory embodied in my patch at https://postgr.es/m/20190304204607.GA15946@alvherre.pgsql is that we don't; tuplesort.c functions (index.c's IndexBuildHeapScan in my case) would get a boolean parameter to indicate whether to update some params or not -- the param number(s) to update are supposed to be generic in the sense that it's not part of any individual command's implementation (PROGRESS_SCAN_BLOCKS_DONE for what you call "blks scanned", PROGRESS_SCAN_BLOCKS_TOTAL for "blks total"), but rather defined by the "progress update provider" (index.c or tuplesort.c). 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. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
