On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2015/10/02 15:38, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> + uint32 progress_param[N_PROGRESS_PARAM]; >> >> Why did you use an array to store the progress information of VACUUM? >> I think that it's better to use separate specific variables for them for >> better code readability, for example, variables scanned_pages, >> heap_total_pages, etc. >> >> + double progress_param_float[N_PROGRESS_PARAM]; >> >> Currently only progress_param_float[0] is used. So there is no need to >> use an array here. > > I think this kind of design may have come from the ideas expressed here > (especially the last paragraph): > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYnWtNJRmVWAJ+wGLOB_x8vNOTrZnEDio=gapi5hk7...@mail.gmail.com
Right. This design is obviously silly if we only care about exposing VACUUM progress. But if we want to be able to expose progress from many utility commands, and slightly different kinds of information for each one, then I think it could be quite useful. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
