so 20. 2. 2021 v 7:09 odesílatel Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> napsal: > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 2:34 AM Tomas Vondra > <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra > > > <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> - The blocks in copyfrom.cc/copyto.c should be reworked - I don't think > > >> we do this in our codebase. > > > > > > I saw this being used in (re)index progress reporting, that's where I > > > took inspiration from. It has been fixed in the attached version. > > > > > > > Hmmm, good point. I haven't looked at the other places reporting > > progress and I only ever saw this pattern in old code. I kinda dislike > > these blocks, but admittedly that's rather subjective view. So if other > > similar places do this when reporting progress, this probably should > > too. What's your opinion on this? > > Actually in the code base the style of that variable declaration and > usage of pgstat_progress_update_multi_param is a mix. For instance, in > lazy_scan_heap, ReindexRelationConcurrently, the variables are > declared at the start of the function. And in _bt_spools_heapscan, > index_build, validate_index, perform_base_backup, the variables are > declared within a separate block. > > IMO, we can have the arrays declared at the start of the functions > i.e. the way it's done in v8-0001, because we can extend them for > reporting some other parameter(maybe in future). > > > >> - I fir the "io_target" name misleading, because in some cases it's > > >> actually the *source*. > > > > > > Yes, I was also not quite happy with this, but couldn't find a better > > > one at the point of writing the initial patchset. Would > > > "io_operations", "io_port", "operates_through" or "through" maybe be > > > better? > > > > > > > No idea. Let's see if someone has a better proposal ... > > For COPY TO the name "source_type" column and for COPY FROM the name > "destination_type" makes sense. To have a combined column name for > both, how about naming that column as "io_type"?
+1 on "io_type", that is my best candidate as well > With Regards, > Bharath Rupireddy. > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
