Hello. At Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:25:15 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in <20190313072515.gb2...@paquier.xyz> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 07:22:28AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Does not apply because of the renaming committed by Michaël. > > > > Could you rebase? > > This stuff touches pg_checksums.c, so you may want to wait one day or > two to avoid extra work... I think that I'll be able to finish the > addition of the --enable and --disable switches by then.
> + /* Make sure we report at most once every tenth of a second */ > + if ((INSTR_TIME_GET_MILLISEC(now) - > + INSTR_TIME_GET_MILLISEC(last_progress_update) < 100) && !force) I'm not a skilled gamer and 10Hz update is a bit hard for my eyes:p The second hand of old clocks ticks at 4Hz. I think it is enough frequently. > 841/1516 MB (55%, 700 MB/s) Differently from other prgress reporting project, estimating ETC (estimated time to completion), which is in the most important, is quite easy. (pgbench does that.) And I'd like to see a progress bar there but it might be overdoing. I'm not sure let the current size occupy a part of screen width is needed. I don't think total size is needed to be fixed in MB and I think at most four or five digits are enough. (That is the same for speed.) If the all of aboves are involved, the line would look as the follows. [======================= ] ( 63% of 12.53 GB, 179 MB/s, ETC 26s) # Note that this is just an opinion. (pg_checksum runs fast at the beginning so ETC behaves somewhat strange in the meanwhile.) > +#define MEGABYTES 1048576 1024 * 1024 is preferable than that many digits. > + /* we handle SIGUSR1 only, and toggle the value of show_progress */ > + if (signum == SIGUSR1) > + show_progress = !show_progress; SIGUSR1 *toggles* progress. A garbage line is left alone after turning it off. It would be erasable. I'm not sure which is better, though. > > @@ -167,7 +255,7 @@ scan_directory(const char *basedir, const char *subdir) > if (strncmp(de->d_name, > PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR, > strlen(PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR)) == 0) > - return; > + continue; Why this patch changes the behavior for temprary directories? It seems like a bug fix of pg_checksums. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
