Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2cfafd6e-8b4e-7b5c-3dca-ca474662d5ca@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process (torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/08/24 21:56, torikoshia wrote: > On 2020-08-24 13:13, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On 2020/08/24 13:01, torikoshia wrote: >>> On 2020-08-22 21:18, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for reviewing! >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:27:06PM +0900, torikoshia wrote: >>>>> OK. Added a regression test on sysviews.sql. >>>>> (0001-Added-a-regression-test-for-pg_backend_memory_contex.patch) >>>>> >>>>> Fujii-san gave us an example, but I added more simple one considering >>>>> the simplicity of other tests on that. >>>> >>>> What you have sent in 0001 looks fine to me. A small test is much >>>> better than nothing. >> >> +1 >> >> But as I proposed upthread, what about a bit complicated test as follows, >> e.g., to confirm that the internal logic for level works expectedly? >> >> SELECT name, ident, parent, level, total_bytes >= free_bytes FROM >> pg_backend_memory_contexts WHERE level = 0; > > OK! > Attached an updated patch. Thanks for updating the patch! Looks good to me. Barring any objection, I will commit this patch. > >> >> >>>> >>>>> Added a patch for relocating the codes to mcxtfuncs.c. >>>>> (patches/0001-Rellocated-the-codes-for-pg_backend_memory_contexts-.patch) >> >> Thanks for the patch! Looks good to me. >> Barring any objection, I will commit this patch at first. >> >> >>>> >>>> The same code is moved around line-by-line. >>>> >>>>> Of course, this restriction makes pg_backend_memory_contexts hard to use >>>>> when the user of the target session is not granted pg_monitor because the >>>>> scope of this view is session local. >>>>> >>>>> In this case, I imagine additional operations something like temporarily >>>>> granting pg_monitor to that user. >>>> >>>> Hmm. I am not completely sure either that pg_monitor is the best fit >>>> here, because this view provides information about a bunch of internal >>>> structures. Something that could easily be done though is to revoke >>>> the access from public, and then users could just set up GRANT >>>> permissions post-initdb, with pg_monitor as one possible choice. This >>>> is the safest path by default, and this stuff is of a caliber similar >>>> to pg_shmem_allocations in terms of internal contents. >>> >>> I think this is a better way than what I did in >>> 0001-Rellocated-the-codes-for-pg_backend_memory_contexts-.patch. >> >> You mean 0001-Restrict-the-access-to-pg_backend_memory_contexts-to.patch? > > Oops, I meant 0001-Restrict-the-access-to-pg_backend_memory_contexts-to.patch. This patch also looks good to me. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: