|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>|
|Cc:||torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kasahara Tatsuhito <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Subject:||Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 06:12:02PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2020/08/19 17:40, torikoshia wrote:
>> Yes, I didn't add regression tests because of the unstability of the output.
>> I thought it would be OK since other views like pg_stat_slru and pg_shmem_allocations
>> didn't have tests for their outputs.
> You're right.
If you can make a test with something minimal and with a stable
output, adding a test is helpful IMO, or how can you make easily sure
that this does not get broken, particularly in the event of future
refactorings, or even with platform-dependent behaviors?
By the way, I was looking at the code that has been committed, and I
think that it is awkward to have a SQL function in mcxt.c, which is a
rather low-level interface. I think that this new code should be
moved to its own file, one suggestion for a location I have being
|Next Message||Julien Rouhaud||2020-08-19 14:19:30||Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view?|
|Previous Message||Andrew Dunstan||2020-08-19 13:38:55||Re: prepared transaction isolation tests|