On 2019-Mar-11, Robert Haas wrote: > 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
Oh. That's easily removed. Though I have to say that other people said that they liked it so much that they would have liked to have it in the original VACUUM one too (5ba2b281-9c84-772a-cf37-17780d782...@lab.ntt.co.jp). -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
