On 11/19/15 7:29 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
Another option is to provide the means for the index scan routines to
>report their progress. Maybe every index AM won't use it, but it'd
>certainly be a lot better than staring at a long_running boolean.
The boolean would be a workaround for sure. I'm also slightly tempted by
the idea of instrumenting vacuum scans of individual index AM's bulkdelete
methods. One precedent is how vacuum_delay_point() are sprinkled around in
the code. Another problem to solve would be to figure out how to pass
progress parameters around - via some struct or could they be globals just
like VacuumCost* variables are...
It just occurred to me that we could do the instrumentation in
lazy_tid_reaped(). It might seem bad to do in increment for every tuple
in an index, but we're already doing a bsearch over the dead tuple list.
Presumably that's going to be a lot more expensive than an increment
operation.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
