From: | Kasahara Tatsuhito <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process |
Date: | 2020-07-30 06:13:51 |
Message-ID: | CAP0=ZVJ2JPS41CffcG-E2CnBkfOjFRa4YoKB=A8vbWGkjEtA1w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:32 PM torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> - whether information for identifying parent-child relation is necessary
> or it's an overkill
I think it's important to understand the parent-child relationship of
the context.
Personally, I often want to know the following two things ..
- In which life cycle is the target context? (Remaining as long as the
process is living? per query?)
- Does the target context belong to the correct (parent) context?
> - if this information is necessary, memory address is suitable or other
> means like assigning unique numbers are required
IMO, If each context can be uniquely identified (or easily guessed) by
"name" and "ident",
then I don't think the address information is necessary.
Instead, I like the way that directly shows the context name of the
parent, as in the 0005 patch.
Best regards
--
Tatsuhito Kasahara
kasahara.tatsuhito _at_ gmail.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-07-30 06:32:46 | Re: INSERT INTO SELECT, Why Parallelism is not selected? |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-07-30 05:50:20 | Re: Reducing WaitEventSet syscall churn |