On 2015/12/03 13:47, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:48:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote >> >> Actually, do we really need to have the table name as a string at all >> here? Why not just report the table OID? Surely whoever wants to check >> the progress can connect to the database in question to figure out the >> table name. > > I thought the same thing but found that the same kind of view > (say, pg_stat_user_tables) has separate relanme and shcemaname in > string (not a qualified name, though). > > Apart from the representation of the relation, OID would be > better as a field in beentry.
I wonder if the field should be a standalone field or as yet another st_progress_* array? IMHO, there are some values that a command would report that should not be mixed with pgstat_report_progress()'s interface. That is, things like command ID/name, command target (table name or OID) should not be mixed with actual progress parameters like num_pages, num_indexes (integers), processing "phase" (string) that are shared via st_progress_* fields. The first of them already has its own reporting interface in proposed patch in the form of pgstat_report_activity_flag(). Although, we must be careful to choose these interfaces carefully. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
