On 2019-Mar-11, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:18 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 2019-Mar-11, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > I don't think that I much like this (3 of 8) and (2 of 5) stuff. It's
> > > inconsistent with what we've got already and it doesn't add much.
> > > Someone who wants to know which phase it is can look at the underlying
> > > numbers directly instead of going through the view, but most people
> > > probably won't care, and given that the phases may be of dramatically
> > > unequal length, I don't think it's adding much.
> > >
> > > Another reason why I think this is a bad idea is that there may be
> > > some operations where we don't transit all the phases in all cases;
> > > the pending patch for CLUSTER progress reporting works like that.
> >
> > What part of it don't you like? Is it the fact that we have phase
> > numbers in the phase name? Is it the fact that we count total phases?
> > Is it that we have two numbers being current (phase + subphase)?
>
> that you have phase numbers in the phase name
Oh. That's easily removed. Though I have to say that other people said
that they liked it so much that they would have liked to have it in the
original VACUUM one too (5ba2b281-9c84-772a-cf37-17780d782936@lab.ntt.co.jp).
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services