Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process
От | torikoshia |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8865138e1c262d54e8a67a71b4a538aa@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-09-04 21:46, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 11:47:30AM +0900, Kasahara Tatsuhito wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:40 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Kasahara Tatsuhito <kasahara.tatsuhito@gmail.com> writes: >>> > Yes, but it's not only for future expansion, but also for the >>> > usability and the stability of this feature. >>> > For example, if you want to read one dumped file multiple times and analyze it, >>> > you will want the ability to just read the dump. >>> >>> If we design it to make that possible, how are we going to prevent >>> disk >>> space leaks from never-cleaned-up dump files? >> In my thought, with features such as a view that allows us to see a >> list of dumped files, >> it would be better to have a function that simply deletes the dump >> files associated with a specific PID, >> or to delete all dump files. >> Some files may be dumped with unexpected delays, so I think the >> cleaning feature will be necessary. >> ( Also, as the pgsql_tmp file, it might better to delete dump files >> when PostgreSQL start.) >> >> Or should we try to delete the dump file as soon as we can read it? >> > > IMO making the cleanup a responsibility of the users (e.g. by exposing > the list of dumped files through a view and expecting users to delete > them in some way) is rather fragile. > > I don't quite see what's the point of designing it this way. It was > suggested this improves stability and usability of this feature, but > surely making it unnecessarily complex contradicts both points? > > IMHO if the user needs to process the dump repeatedly, what's > preventing > him/her from storing it in a file, or something like that? At that > point > it's clear it's up to them to remove the file. So I suggest to keep the > feature as simple as possible - hand the dump over and delete. +1. If there are no other objections, I'm going to accept this suggestion. Regards
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: