From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a running backend |
Date: | 2017-12-21 06:58:10 |
Message-ID: | 20171221065810.4khb3naphokov4ml@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-12-21 14:49:28 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> +/*
> + * Accumulate writes into the buffer in diag_request_buf,
> + * for use with functions that expect a printf-like callback.
> + */
> +static void
> +printwrapper_stringinfo(void *extra, const char * fmt, ...)
> +{
> + StringInfo out = extra;
> + for (;;)
> + {
> + va_list args;
> + int needed;
> + va_start(args, fmt);
> + needed = appendStringInfoVA(out, fmt, args);
> + va_end(args);
> + if (needed == 0)
> + break;
> + enlargeStringInfo(out, needed);
> + }
> }
Hm, so I'm not entirely sure it's ok to use something that ERRORs on
OOM. There's plenty of scenarios with thousands of memory contexts,
making this output fairly large. If we want to make this usable in
production, I'm not sure it's ok to introduce additional ERRORs. I
wonder if we can change this to emit a static message if collecting the
output exhausted memory.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-12-21 07:13:13 | Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a running backend |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-12-21 06:49:28 | Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a running backend |