On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:43:40PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Hmm, does CFBot not run checkout on windows with crlf line endings? I
> had expected it to do as such.
This is environment-sensitive, so I am not surprised that Appveyor
changes the way newlines are handled there. I could se
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 05:53, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 09:35:10AM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > There are examples in which pg_stat_progress_* -views report
> > inaccurate data. I think it is fairly reasonable to at least validate
> > some part of the progress r
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 09:35:10AM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> There are examples in which pg_stat_progress_* -views report
> inaccurate data. I think it is fairly reasonable to at least validate
> some part of the progress reporting, as it is one of the few methods
> for administrators t
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 06:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > Seems reasonable. PFA updated patches. I've renamed the previous 0003
> > to 0002 to keep git-format-patch easy.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch. 0001 has been appl
út 9. 3. 2021 v 6:34 odesílatel Michael Paquier napsal:
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > Seems reasonable. PFA updated patches. I've renamed the previous 0003
> > to 0002 to keep git-format-patch easy.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch. 0001 has been
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 11:04 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > This is keeping current behaviour of the implementation as committed
> > with 8a4f618e, with the rationale of that patch being that this number
> > should mirror the number returned by the copy command.
> >
> > I am not opposed to adding a
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Seems reasonable. PFA updated patches. I've renamed the previous 0003
> to 0002 to keep git-format-patch easy.
Thanks for updating the patch. 0001 has been applied, after tweaking
a bit comments, indentation and the docs.
>
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 09:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:50:31PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > Attaching remaining patches 0001 and 0003 from the v11 patch
> > set(posted upthread) here to make cfbot happier.
>
> Looking at patch 0002, the location of each progress
On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:50:31PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Attaching remaining patches 0001 and 0003 from the v11 patch
> set(posted upthread) here to make cfbot happier.
Looking at patch 0002, the location of each progress report looks good
to me. I have some issues with some of the na
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:30 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:45:50PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > Sure, I'm convinced. PFA the patchset with this change applied.
>
> 0002 looks fine to me, and in line with the discussion, so applied.
Thanks.
Attaching remainin
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:45:50PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Sure, I'm convinced. PFA the patchset with this change applied.
0002 looks fine to me, and in line with the discussion, so applied.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 17:29, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:19:18PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> >
> > "Backends running [...] report progress to [...] instead" is,
> > a.f.a.i.k., correct English. Adding 'will' would indeed still be
> > correct, but it would in my op
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:19:18PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 13:36, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > +
> > +Each backend running VACUUM without the
> > +FULL option will report its progress in the
> > +pg_stat_progress_vacuum view. Backends runni
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 13:36, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> +
> +Each backend running VACUUM without the
> +FULL option will report its progress in the
> +pg_stat_progress_vacuum view. Backends running
> +VACUUM with the FULL option report
> +progress in the pg_stat_progress_c
čt 4. 3. 2021 v 12:32 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
napsal:
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 11:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:16:17PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > IMO, the phrasing proposed by Justin upthread looks good. It's like this:
> > >
> > > > +Each
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 11:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:16:17PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > IMO, the phrasing proposed by Justin upthread looks good. It's like this:
> > >
> > > > +Each ba
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 11:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:16:17PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > IMO, the phrasing proposed by Justin upthread looks good. It's like this:
> >
> > > +Each backend running ANALYZE will report its
> > > progress in
> > > +the pg_
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:16:17PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> IMO, the phrasing proposed by Justin upthread looks good. It's like this:
>
> > +Each backend running ANALYZE will report its
> > progress in
> > +the pg_stat_progress_analyze view. See
No objections to just go with tha
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 1:23 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 08:10:09PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH v9 1/3] Add progress-reported components for COPY progress
> > reporting
>
> > /* Increment amount of processed tuples and upda
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:44 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 01:53:03AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 08:10:09PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > I think these should say that they report their progress *in* the view (not
> > "to"):
> >
> > >
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 01:53:03AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 08:10:09PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> I think these should say that they report their progress *in* the view (not
> "to"):
>
> > +Each backend running ANALYZE will report its
> > progress to
>
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 08:10:09PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH v9 1/3] Add progress-reported components for COPY progress
> reporting
> /* Increment amount of processed tuples and update the
> progress */
> /* Increment amount of processed tu
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
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 2:57 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 05:49, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:40 AM Matthias van de Meent
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 at 07:09, Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For COPY TO
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 05:49, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:40 AM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 at 07:09, Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > For COPY TO the name "source_type" column and for COPY FROM the name
> > > "destination_type"
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:40 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 at 07:09, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 namin
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 at 07:09, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> 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"?
Thank you, that's way better! PFA what I believe
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 02:29:44PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Yeah. We could use pgstat_progress_update_multi_param instead of
> pgstat_progress_update_param to update multiple params.
>
> On a quick scan through the code, I found that we can do the following. If
> okay, I can start a new t
so 20. 2. 2021 v 7:09 odesílatel Bharath Rupireddy
napsal:
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 2:34 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> - The blocks in copyfrom.cc/copyto.c should be reworked - I don't think
> > >> we do this in our codeba
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:49 PM Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 11:39:22AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > 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, Rei
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 11:39:22AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 2:34 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra
> > 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 wh
On 2/18/21 4:46 PM, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you all for the suggestions. PFA version 8 of the patchset, in
> which I have applied most of your comments. Unless explicitly named
> below, I have applied the suggestions.
>
Thanks.
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vo
Hi,
Thank you all for the suggestions. PFA version 8 of the patchset, in
which I have applied most of your comments. Unless explicitly named
below, I have applied the suggestions.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:07, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> - The blocks in copyfrom.cc/copyto.c should be reworked - I d
Hi,
I agree with these changes in general - I have a couple minor comment:
1) 0001
- the SGML docs are missing a couple tags
- The blocks in copyfrom.cc/copyto.c should be reworked - I don't think
we do this in our codebase. Move the variable declarations to the
beginning, get rid of the out bl
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/analyze.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/analyze.sgml
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 13:40, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:40 PM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 12:23, Matthias van de Meent
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 15:44, Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Th
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:40 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 12:23, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 15:44, Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:08 PM Josef Šimánek
> > > wrote:
> > >> I have split it sin
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 12:23, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 15:44, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:08 PM Josef Šimánek wrote:
> >> I have split it since it should be the start of progress reporting
> >> testing at all. If you better consid
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 15:44, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:08 PM Josef Šimánek wrote:
>> I have split it since it should be the start of progress reporting
>> testing at all. If you better consider this as part of COPY testing,
>> feel free to move it to already existing
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:08 PM Josef Šimánek wrote:
> čt 11. 2. 2021 v 15:27 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
> napsal:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 07:43, Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:02 PM Matthias van de Meent
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Also, you can add th
čt 11. 2. 2021 v 15:27 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
napsal:
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 07:43, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:02 PM Matthias van de Meent
> > wrote:
> > > > Also, you can add this to the current commitfest.
> > >
> > > See https://commitfest.postgr
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 07:43, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:02 PM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > > Also, you can add this to the current commitfest.
> >
> > See https://commitfest.postgresql.org/32/2977/
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 12:53, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:02 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> > Also, you can add this to the current commitfest.
>
> See https://commitfest.postgresql.org/32/2977/
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 12:53, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> >
> > OK, would you mind to integrate my regression test initial patch as
>
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 08:12, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:06 AM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > With [0] we got COPY progress reporting. Before the column names of
> > this newly added view are effectively set in stone with the release of
> > pg14, I propose the follo
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 09:32, Josef Šimánek wrote:
>
> po 8. 2. 2021 v 19:35 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
> napsal:
> > Lastly, 0005 adds 'io_target' to the reported information, that is,
> > FILE, PROGRAM, STDIO or CALLBACK. Although this can relatively easily
> > be determined based on the c
út 9. 2. 2021 v 12:51 odesílatel 0010203112132233 napsal:
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 09:32, Josef Šimánek wrote:
> >
> > po 8. 2. 2021 v 19:35 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
> > napsal:
> > > Lastly, 0005 adds 'io_target' to the reported information, that is,
> > > FILE, PROGRAM, STDIO or CALLB
po 8. 2. 2021 v 19:35 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
napsal:
>
> Hi,
>
> With [0] we got COPY progress reporting. Before the column names of
> this newly added view are effectively set in stone with the release of
> pg14, I propose the following set of relatively small patches. These
> are v2, b
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:06 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> With [0] we got COPY progress reporting. Before the column names of
> this newly added view are effectively set in stone with the release of
> pg14, I propose the following set of relatively small patches. These
> are v2, because it is
po 8. 2. 2021 v 19:35 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
napsal:
>
> Hi,
>
> With [0] we got COPY progress reporting. Before the column names of
> this newly added view are effectively set in stone with the release of
> pg14, I propose the following set of relatively small patches. These
> are v2, b
Hi,
With [0] we got COPY progress reporting. Before the column names of
this newly added view are effectively set in stone with the release of
pg14, I propose the following set of relatively small patches. These
are v2, because it is a patchset that is based on a set of patches
that I previously p
51 matches
Mail list logo
