| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com, john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages |
| Date: | 2023-03-20 05:03:13 |
| Message-ID: | ZBfpEYG0qTCiBGDh@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:54:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The main advantage of a read-only GUC over a function is that users
> would not need to start a postmaster to know if huge pages would be
> active or not. This is the main reason why a GUC would be a better
> fit, in my opinion, because it makes for a cheaper check, while still
> allowing a SQL query to check the value of the GUC.
[ Should have read more carefully ]
.. Which is something you cannot do with -C because mmap() happens
after the runtime-computed logic for postgres -C. It does not sound
right to do the mmap() for a GUC check, so indeed a function may be
more adapted rather than move mmap() call a bit earlier in the
postmaster startup sequence.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-03-20 05:09:09 | Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-03-20 04:54:46 | Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages |