Re: pg_shmem_allocations & documentation

Here's a proposal patch.

Le ven. 11 déc. 2020 à 09:58, Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)gmail(dot)com> a
écrit :

> Would "NULL for anonymous allocations, since details related to them are
> not known." be ok ?
>
>
> Le ven. 11 déc. 2020 à 09:29, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
> a écrit :
>
>> At Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:42:45 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
>> wrote in
>> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 11:00:58AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> > > Although we could just rip some words off, I'd like to propose instead
>> > > to add an explanation why it is not exposed for anonymous allocations,
>> > > like the column allocated_size.
>> >
>> > Indeed, there is a hiccup between what the code does and what the docs
>> > tell: the offset is not NULL for unused memory.
>> >
>> > > - The offset at which the allocation starts. NULL for anonymous
>> > > - allocations and unused memory.
>> > > + The offset at which the allocation starts. For anonymous
>> allocations,
>> > > + no information about individual allocations is available, so
>> the column
>> > > + will be NULL in that case.
>> >
>> > I'd say: let's be simple and just remove "and unused memory" because
>> > anonymous allocations are... Anonymous so you cannot know details
>> > related to them. That's something easy to reason about, and the docs
>> > were written originally to remain simple.
>>
>> Hmm. I don't object to that. Howerver, isn't the description for
>> allocated_size too verbose in that sense?
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> --
>> Kyotaro Horiguchi
>> NTT Open Source Software Center
>>
>