2017-07-31 11:09 GMT+02:00 Remi Colinet <remi.coli...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2017-07-26 15:27 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Remi Colinet <remi.coli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > test=# SELECT pid, ppid, bid, concat(repeat(' ', 3 * indent),name),
>> value,
>> > unit FROM pg_progress(0,0);
>> > pid | ppid | bid | concat | value | unit
>> > -------+------+-----+------------------+------------------+---------
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | status | query running |
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | relationship | progression |
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | node name | Sort |
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | sort status | on tapes writing |
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | completion | 0 | percent
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | relationship | Outer |
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | node name | Seq Scan |
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | scan on | t_10m |
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | fetched | 25049 | block
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | total | 83334 | block
>> > 14106 | 0 | 4 | completion | 30 | percent
>> > (11 rows)
>> >
>> > test=#
>>
>> Somehow I imagined that the output would look more like what EXPLAIN
>> produces.
>>
>
>
> I had initially used the same output as for the ANALYZE command:
>
> test=# PROGRESS 14611;
> PLAN PROGRESS
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------
> Gather Merge
> -> Sort=> dumping tuples to tapes
> rows r/w merge 0/0 rows r/w effective 0/1464520 0%
> Sort Key: md5
> -> Parallel Seq Scan on t_10m => rows 1464520/4166700 35% blks
> 36011/83334 43%
> (5 rows)
>
> test=#
>
> But this restricts the use to "human consumers". Using a table output with
> name/value pairs, allows the use by utilities for instance, without
> parsing. This is less handy for administrators, but far better for 3rd
> party utilities. One solution is otherwise to create a PL/SQL command on
> top of pg_progress() SQL function to produce an output similar to the one
> of the ANALYZE command.
>
you can support XML, JSON output format like EXPLAIN does.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-explain.html
Regards
pavel
>
>
>> > If the one shared memory page is not enough for the whole progress
>> report,
>> > the progress report transfert between the 2 backends is done with a
>> series
>> > of request/response. Before setting the latch, the monitored backend
>> write
>> > the size of the data dumped in shared memory and set a status to
>> indicate
>> > that more data is to be sent through the shared memory page. The
>> monitoring
>> > backends get the result and sends an other signal, and then wait for the
>> > latch again. The monitored backend does not collect a new progress
>> report
>> > but continues to dump the already collected report. And the exchange
>> goes on
>> > until the full progress report has been dumped.
>>
>> This is basically what shm_mq does. We probably don't want to
>> reinvent that code, as it has taken a surprising amount of debugging
>> to get it fully working.
>>
>
> Yes, I had once considered this solution but then moved away as I was
> unsure of the exact need for the transfert of the progress report between
> the monitored and the monitoring backends.
> I'am going to switch to shm_mq.
>
> Thx & Rgds
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Robert Haas
>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>
>
