Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process

From: torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com, kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process
Date: 2021-04-06 01:57:01
Message-ID: 8205c0edb46ae848bcf07635ac2cc7ee@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021-04-06 00:08, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/04/05 21:03, torikoshia wrote:
>> On 2021-04-05 12:59, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On 2021/04/05 12:20, Zhihong Yu wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing!
>>
>>>> + * On receipt of this signal, a backend sets the flag in the signal
>>>> + * handler, and then which causes the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()
>>
>>>> I think the 'and then' is not needed:
>>
>> Although I wonder either would be fine, removed the words.
>>
>>>> +        * This is just a warning so a loop-through-resultset will
>>>> not abort
>>>> +        * if one backend logged its memory contexts during the run.
>>>>
>>>> The pid given by arg 0 is not a PostgreSQL server process. Which
>>>> other backend could it be ?
>>>
>>> This is the comment that I added wrongly. So the comment should be
>>> "This is just a warning so a loop-through-resultset will not abort
>>> if one backend terminated on its own during the run.",
>>> like pg_signal_backend(). Thought?
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Attached v10 patch.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> I updated the patch as follows. Could you check the attached patch?

Thanks a lot!

I don't have any objections to your improvements.

Regards,

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dan Lynch 2021-04-06 02:51:46 Re: policies with security definer option for allowing inline optimization
Previous Message shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com 2021-04-06 01:49:15 RE: Table refer leak in logical replication