Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com, john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages
Date: 2023-06-23 04:57:51
Message-ID: ZJUmT8ZD6nLPTUD/
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: 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.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v9-0001-add-GUC-huge_pages_status.patch text/x-diff 8.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2023-06-23 05:28:39 Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-06-23 03:59:43 Re: Deleting prepared statements from libpq.