From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Summary function for pg_buffercache |
Date: | 2022-09-20 12:43:25 |
Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TO_T4QaKEfquZKbkXeC1Ktu2cSJp7sKCi-LbEGqyg=79w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Zhang,
> The doc says we don’t take lock during pg_buffercache_summary, but I see locks in the v8 patch, Isn’t it?
>
> ```
> Similar to <function>pg_buffercache_pages</function> function
> <function>pg_buffercache_summary</function> doesn't take buffer manager
> locks [...]
> ```
Correct, the procedure doesn't take the locks of the buffer manager.
It does take the locks of every individual buffer.
I agree that the text is somewhat confusing, but it is consistent with
the current description of pg_buffercache [1]. I think this is a
problem worth addressing but it also seems to be out of scope of the
proposed patch.
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pgbuffercache.html
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zhang Mingli | 2022-09-20 12:48:59 | Re: Summary function for pg_buffercache |
Previous Message | Zhang Mingli | 2022-09-20 12:29:30 | Re: Summary function for pg_buffercache |