Re: Draft for basic NUMA observability

On 4/7/25 19:24, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-04-04 19:07:12 +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
>> They actually look good to me. We've discussed earlier dropping
>> s/numa_//g for column names (after all views contain it already) so
>> they are fine in this regard.
>> There's also the question of consistency: (bufferid, page_num,
>> node_id) -- maybe should just drop "_" and that's it?
>> Well I would even possibly consider page_num -> ospagenumber, but that's ugly.
>
> I'd go for os_page_num.

WFM. I've renamed "ospageid" to "os_page_num" in 0003, and I've also
renamed "node_id" to "numa_node" in 0002+0003, to make it clearer what
kind of node this is.

This reminds me whether it's fine to have "os_page_num" as int. Should
we make it bigint, perhaps?

Attached is v28, with the commit messages updated, added <warning> about
allocation of the memory, etc. I'll let the CI run the tests on it, and
then will push, unless someone has more comments.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra