On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:27:24AM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > Note, I'm happy to be proven wrong here, in which case I don't > disagree, but according to my limited knowledge, these outputs should > be stable.
I am planning to look more at 0001 and 0003, but for now I have been looking at 0002 which is interesting on its own. + <structname>pg_stat_progress_vacuum</structname> view. Backends running + <command>VACUUM</command> with the <literal>FULL</literal> option report + progress in the <structname>pg_stat_progress_cluster</structname> instead. You have missed one "view" after pg_stat_progress_cluster here. Except that, this stuff looks fine. So I'd like to apply it if there are no objections. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
