Re: Draft for basic NUMA observability

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Draft for basic NUMA observability
Date: 2025-02-24 16:11:15
Message-ID: Z7yaIzOCigNGrfp4@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 Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 09:06:20AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> Does the issue with "new" backends seeing pages as not present exist both with
> and without huge pages?

That's a good point and from what I can see it's correct with huge pages being
used (it means all processes see the same NUMA node assignment regardless of
access patterns).

That said, wouldn't that be too strong to impose a restriction that huge_pages
must be enabled?

Jakub, thanks for the new patch version! FWIW, I did not look closely to the
code yet (just did the minor changes already shared to have valid result with non
tiny shared buffer size). I'll look closely at the code for sure once we all agree
on the design part of it.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2025-02-24 16:15:25 Re: Statistics Import and Export
Previous Message Andrew Jackson 2025-02-24 16:07:33 Re: Add Option To Check All Addresses For Matching target_session_attr