| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parent/child context relation in pg_get_backend_memory_contexts() |
| Date: | 2024-07-10 21:19:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY-2xTnEtoRzY_u4HMNeQQuRkR8EGXsYN-ggk2xboiomA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 4:06 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I've been wondering about the order of the "path" column. When we
> talked, I had in mind that the TopMemoryContext should always be at
> the end of the array rather than the start, but I see you've got it
> the other way around.
FWIW, I would have done what Melih did. A path normally is listed in
root-to-leaf order, not leaf-to-root.
> I also imagined "path" would be called "context_ids". I thought that
> might better indicate what the column is without consulting the
> documentation.
The only problem I see with this is that it doesn't make it clear that
we're being shown parentage or ancestry, rather than values for the
current node. I suspect path is fairly understandable, but if you
don't like that, what about parent_ids?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-10 21:41:01 | Re: improve predefined roles documentation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-07-10 21:16:23 | Re: Parent/child context relation in pg_get_backend_memory_contexts() |