 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
18 messages in org.postgresql.pgsql-hackersRe: Progress bar updates| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Gregory Stark | Jul 18, 2006 11:35 am | |
| Luke Lonergan | Jul 18, 2006 11:44 am | |
| Dave Page | Jul 18, 2006 1:08 pm | |
| Andreas Pflug | Jul 18, 2006 5:12 pm | |
| Neil Conway | Jul 18, 2006 6:52 pm | |
| Tom Lane | Jul 18, 2006 8:23 pm | |
| Josh Berkus | Jul 18, 2006 9:24 pm | |
| Greg Stark | Jul 19, 2006 2:18 am | |
| Hannu Krosing | Jul 19, 2006 2:33 am | |
| Dave Page | Jul 19, 2006 2:35 am | |
| Andreas Pflug | Jul 19, 2006 5:23 am | |
| Tom Lane | Jul 19, 2006 7:33 am | |
| Darcy Buskermolen | Jul 19, 2006 8:54 am | |
| Andrew Hammond | Jul 19, 2006 10:29 am | |
| Christopher Kings-Lynne | Jul 19, 2006 6:38 pm | |
| Agent M | Jul 19, 2006 7:40 pm | |
| Csaba Nagy | Jul 20, 2006 1:51 am | |
| Luke Lonergan | Jul 20, 2006 8:36 am |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | Re: Progress bar updates | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) | |
| Date: | Jul 19, 2006 2:18:32 am | |
| List: | org.postgresql.pgsql-hackers | |
Tom Lane <tg...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Neil Conway <nei...@samurai.com> writes:
I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting; presumably you'd need to open another client connection to send the "status report" message to a backend (since a backend will not be polling its input socket during query execution). That just seems like the wrong approach -- stashing a backend's current status into shared memory sounds more promising, IMHO, and won't require changes to the FE/BE protocol.
Yeah, I was about to make the same comment. The new support for query status in shared memory should make it pretty cheap to update a progress indicator there, and then it'd be trivial to expose the indicator to other backends via pg_stat_activity.
I think that would be a fine feature too. But I don't think that reduces the desire clients have to be able to request updates on the status of their own queries.
In practice, if a query is taking long enough for this feature to be interesting, making another connection and looking to see what's happening is not a problem, and it's likely to be the most practical way anyway for many clients.
It would be the most practical way for a DBA to monitor an application. But it's not going to be convenient for clients like pgadmin or psql. Even a web server may want to, for example, stream ajax code updating a progress bar until it has results and then stream the ajax to display the results. Having to get the backend pid before your query and then open a second database connection to monitor your first connection would be extra footwork for nothing.
-- greg