Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Subject | Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side |
Date | |
Msg-id | b5f5e00c-e2f1-900b-0b2a-90f20c8f5b7e@oss.nttdata.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Responses |
Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting for pg_basebackup, in the server side
Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/02/26 23:18, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2020/02/18 21:31, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> >> On 2020/02/18 16:53, Amit Langote wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:42 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >>>> On 2020/02/18 16:02, Amit Langote wrote: >>>>> I noticed that there is missing </para> tag in the documentation changes: >>>> >>>> Could you tell me where I should add </para> tag? >>>> >>>>> + <row> >>>>> + <entry><literal>waiting for checkpoint to finish</literal></entry> >>>>> + <entry> >>>>> + The WAL sender process is currently performing >>>>> + <function>pg_start_backup</function> to set up for >>>>> + taking a base backup, and waiting for backup start >>>>> + checkpoint to finish. >>>>> + </entry> >>>>> + <row> >>>>> >>>>> There should be a </row> between </entry> and <row> at the end of the >>>>> hunk shown above. >>>> >>>> Will fix. Thanks! >>> >>> Just to clarify, that's the missing </para> tag I am talking about above. >> >> OK, so I added </row> tag just after the above </entry>. >> >>>>> + <para> >>>>> + Whenever <application>pg_basebackup</application> is taking a base >>>>> + backup, the <structname>pg_stat_progress_basebackup</structname> >>>>> + view will contain a row for each WAL sender process that is currently >>>>> + running <command>BASE_BACKUP</command> replication command >>>>> + and streaming the backup. >>>>> >>>>> I understand that you wrote "Whenever pg_basebackup is taking a >>>>> backup...", because description of other views contains a similar >>>>> starting line. But, it may not only be pg_basebackup that would be >>>>> served by this view, no? It could be any tool that speaks Postgres' >>>>> replication protocol and thus be able to send a BASE_BACKUP command. >>>>> If that is correct, I would write something like "When an application >>>>> is taking a backup" or some such without specific reference to >>>>> pg_basebackup. Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Yeah, there may be some such applications. But most users would >>>> use pg_basebackup, so getting rid of the reference to pg_basebackup >>>> would make the description a bit difficult-to-read. Also I can imagine >>>> that an user of those backup applications would get to know >>>> the progress reporting view from their documents. So I prefer >>>> the existing one or something like "Whenever an application like >>>> pg_basebackup ...". Thought? >>> >>> Sure, "an application like pg_basebackup" sounds fine to me. >> >> OK, I changed the doc that way. Attached the updated version of the patch. > > Attached is the updated version of the patch. > > The previous patch used only pgstat_progress_update_param() > even when updating multiple values. Since those updates are > not atomic, this can cause readers of the values to see > the intermediate states. To avoid this issue, the latest patch > uses pgstat_progress_update_multi_param(), instead. Attached the updated version of the patch. Barring any objections, I plan to commit this patch. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NTT DATA CORPORATION Advanced Platform Technology Group Research and Development Headquarters
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: