On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 07:37:00PM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > I don't think a separate view is the right approach at least for two > reasons. One, to know the progress of a vacuum one has to query two > views and relate them. Two, since the leader itself participates in > vacuuming indexes alongside workers (and will also for parallel heap > vacuum), splitting the same command's progress into two views adds > complexity. Keeping everything in a single view with one row per > worker (as discussed upthread) is simpler. Some fields would be null > on worker rows, but documenting this should be sufficient. That said, > I'm open to hear more thoughts on this.
Having a single progress view feels like the natural approach here, for both the leader and the workers. The leader triggers the existence of the workers, but both leader and workers may finish by doing the same job as there could be usually little meaning for a leader to stand idle, waiting for all the workers to do the work. Such choices are implementation-agnostic, of course; we should not lock ourselves. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
