Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting; presumably you'd need to open > > another client connection to send the "status report" message to a > > backend (since a backend will not be polling its input socket during > > query execution). That just seems like the wrong approach -- stashing a > > backend's current status into shared memory sounds more promising, IMHO, > > and won't require changes to the FE/BE protocol. > > Yeah, I was about to make the same comment. The new support for query > status in shared memory should make it pretty cheap to update a progress > indicator there, and then it'd be trivial to expose the indicator to > other backends via pg_stat_activity.
I think that would be a fine feature too. But I don't think that reduces the desire clients have to be able to request updates on the status of their own queries. > In practice, if a query is taking long enough for this feature to be > interesting, making another connection and looking to see what's happening > is not a problem, and it's likely to be the most practical way anyway for > many clients. It would be the most practical way for a DBA to monitor an application. But it's not going to be convenient for clients like pgadmin or psql. Even a web server may want to, for example, stream ajax code updating a progress bar until it has results and then stream the ajax to display the results. Having to get the backend pid before your query and then open a second database connection to monitor your first connection would be extra footwork for nothing. -- greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
