Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a running backend
От | Craig Ringer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a running backend |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMsr+YFsjvHG7onK4GvJeOTagj600bsqZrM7-y7HY_ccBxZo+Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a running backend (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 December 2017 at 12:10, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
-- On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 12 December 2017 at 12:43, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-12 11:57:41 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> But that'd have
>> the disadvanatage that it possibly would take a while till the
>> MemoryContextStats() is executed. Not sure if that's still good enough
>> for you?
>
> Definitely. Sure, it won't be perfect, but it'd be a big improvement on what
> we have.
If this would be fine enough, why not giving a shot then? Having to
use gdb now on production systems is something sometimes hard to
justify to customers. There are also the Windows problems...
>> Another question is whether printing to stderr, bypassing proper
>> logging!, is good enough for something like this.
>
> I think the reason it prints to stderr now is that it's intended to run in
> OOM situations.
Yep. I am on board with Tom here that this property should not be thrown away.
OK, so I think I'll do pretty much what I outlined above, using stringinfo for the !OOM case and fprintf for the OOM case, via callback, roughly as outlined upthread. I won't bother with elog, it's easy enough if someone cares.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: