From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
Cc: | "Shinoda, Noriyoshi (SXD Japan FSI)" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Draft for basic NUMA observability |
Date: | 2025-04-09 18:59:14 |
Message-ID: | Z/bDgsUPklRjF/8k@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:46:16PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 4/8/25 01:26, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (SXD Japan FSI) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for developing this great feature.
> > The manual says that the 'size' column of the pg_shmem_allocations_numa view is 'int4', but the implementation is 'int8'.
> > The attached small patch fixes the manual.
> >
>
> Thank you for noticing this and for the fix! Pushed.
>
> This also reminded me we agreed to change page_num to bigint, which I
> forgot to change before commit. So I adjusted that too, separately.
I was doing some extra testing and just realized (did not think of it during the
review) that maybe we could add a pg_buffercache_numa usage example (like it's
already done for pg_buffercache).
That might sound obvious but OTOH I think that would not hurt.
Something like in the attached?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-0001-Add-pg_buffercache_numa-usage-example.patch | text/x-diff | 2.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-04-09 19:05:48 | Re: Large expressions in indexes can't be stored (non-TOASTable) |
Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-04-09 18:57:44 | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |