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
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company