From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kasahara Tatsuhito <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process |
Date: | 2020-08-24 04:13:39 |
Message-ID: | 07da4267-74bf-4a6b-3312-4ab7c1e72f66@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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;
>>
>>> 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?
> Attached a patch.
Thanks for updating the patch! This also looks good to me.
>> It seems to me that you are missing one "REVOKE ALL on
>> pg_backend_memory_contexts FROM PUBLIC" in patch 0003.
>>
>> By the way, if that was just for me, I would remove used_bytes, which
>> is just a computation from the total and free numbers. I'll defer
>> that point to Fujii-san.
Yeah, I was just thinking that displaying also used_bytes was useful,
but this might be inconsistent with the other views' ways.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-08-24 05:27:17 | Re: display offset along with block number in vacuum errors |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-08-24 04:12:42 | Re: list of extended statistics on psql |