On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:18 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2019-Mar-11, Robert Haas wrote: > > I don't think that I much like this (3 of 8) and (2 of 5) stuff. It's > > inconsistent with what we've got already and it doesn't add much. > > Someone who wants to know which phase it is can look at the underlying > > numbers directly instead of going through the view, but most people > > probably won't care, and given that the phases may be of dramatically > > unequal length, I don't think it's adding much. > > > > Another reason why I think this is a bad idea is that there may be > > some operations where we don't transit all the phases in all cases; > > the pending patch for CLUSTER progress reporting works like that. > > What part of it don't you like? Is it the fact that we have phase > numbers in the phase name? Is it the fact that we count total phases? > Is it that we have two numbers being current (phase + subphase)?
that you have phase numbers in the phase name -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
