From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Enhancing Memory Context Statistics Reporting |
Date: | 2025-04-08 23:28:09 |
Message-ID: | 437100f2-dd86-42e6-830c-5ff413a25e8e@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025/04/09 6:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2025, at 18:41, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I noticed that the third argument of pg_get_process_memory_contexts() is named
>> "retries" in pg_proc.dat, while the documentation refers to it as "timeout".
>
> I've committed this patch as it was obviously correct, thanks!
Thanks a lot!
Since pg_proc.dat was modified, do we need to bump the catalog version?
>> Also, as I mentioned earlier, I encountered an issue when calling
>> pg_get_process_memory_contexts() on the PID of a backend that had just
>> encountered an error but hadn't finished rolling back. It led to
>> the following situation:
>
> I reconfirmed that the bugfix that Rahila shared in [0] fixes this issue (and
> will fix others like it, as it's not related to this patch in particular but is
> a bug in DSM attaching). My plan is to take that for a more thorough review
> and test tomorrow and see how far it can be safely backpatched. Thanks for
> bringing this up, sorry about it getting a bit lost among all the emails.
Appreciate your work on this!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-04-08 23:29:08 | Re: Draft for basic NUMA observability |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-04-08 23:27:26 | Re: Draft for basic NUMA observability |