| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a running backend |
| Date: | 2017-12-12 19:04:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZL18gVSEz8jEFhkq8bQJtqUf24S6LBdrZ6Z4cDZx++gQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I do wonder if the right thing here wouldn't be to put the result into a
> dsm segment, and then return that to the UDF on the requesting
> side. Logging to the server log and then have the requestor dig that out
> doesn't seem particularly user friendly.
I think that dumping it to the server log will be fine for most
people, and it's *significantly* safer. Creating a DSM segment could
fail, and the last thing we want is for interrogating a long-running
backend to make it crap out.
+1 for this whole concept, just BTW. As I've said before, I grow
weary of asking customers to run gdb.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-12-12 19:12:29 | Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a running backend |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-12 19:01:48 | Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures |