Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZJUmT8ZD6nLPTUD/@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 06:44:20PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:50:30PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 02:37:15PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> > Fair enough. I know I've been waffling in the GUC versus function >> > discussion, but FWIW v7 of the patch looks reasonable to me. >> >> + Assert(strcmp("unknown", GetConfigOption("huge_pages_status", false, false)) != 0); >> >> Not sure that there is anything to gain with this assertion in >> CreateSharedMemoryAndSemaphores(), because this is pretty much what >> check_GUC_init() looks after? > > It seems like you misread the assertion, so I added a comment about it. > Indeed, the assertion addresses the other question you asked later. > > That's what I already commented about, and the reason I found it > compelling not to use a boolean. Apologies for the late reply here. At the end, I am on board with the addition of this assertion and its position after PGSharedMemoryCreate(). I would also move the SetConfigOption() for the WIN32 path after ew have passed all the checks. There are a few FATALs that can be triggered so it would be a waste to call it if we are going to fail the shmem creation in this path. I could not resist adding two checks in the TAP tests to make sure that we don't report unknown. Perhaps that's not necessary, but that would provide coverage in a more broader way, and these are cheap. I have run one indentation, while on it. Note to self: check that manually on Windows. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: