On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:24 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2020-Mar-19, Amit Langote wrote: > > > Magnus' idea of checking the values in pg_stat_get_progress_info() to > > determine whether to return NULL seems fine to me. We will need to > > update the documentation of st_progress_param, because it currently > > says: > > > > * ...but the meaning of each element in the > > * st_progress_param array is command-specific. > > */ > > ProgressCommandType st_progress_command; > > Oid st_progress_command_target; > > int64 st_progress_param[PGSTAT_NUM_PROGRESS_PARAM]; > > } PgBackendStatus; > > > > If we are to define -1 in st_progress_param[] as NULL to the users, > > that must be mentioned here. > > Hmm, why -1? It seems like a value that we might want to use for other > purposes in other params. Maybe INT64_MIN is a better choice?
Yes, maybe. -- Thank you, Amit
