On 2020/03/19 11:32, Amit Langote wrote:
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.
So you think that the latest patch is good enough?
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.
I don't think that we need to define the specific value like -1 as NULL
globally.
Which value should be used for that purpose may vary by each command. Only for
pg_stat_progress_basebackup.backup_total, IMO using -1 as special value for
NULL is not so bad idea.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters
