| From: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com, kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process |
| Date: | 2021-04-05 12:03:12 |
| Message-ID: | bd216370d915116da8c3cba6537f78dc@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-04-05 12:59, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/04/05 12:20, Zhihong Yu wrote:
Thanks for reviewing!
>> + * On receipt of this signal, a backend sets the flag in the signal
>> + * handler, and then which causes the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()
>> I think the 'and then' is not needed:
Although I wonder either would be fine, removed the words.
>> + * This is just a warning so a loop-through-resultset will not
>> abort
>> + * if one backend logged its memory contexts during the run.
>>
>> The pid given by arg 0 is not a PostgreSQL server process. Which other
>> backend could it be ?
>
> This is the comment that I added wrongly. So the comment should be
> "This is just a warning so a loop-through-resultset will not abort
> if one backend terminated on its own during the run.",
> like pg_signal_backend(). Thought?
+1.
Attached v10 patch.
Regards,
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v10-0001-add-memorycontext-elog-print.patch | text/x-diff | 28.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-04-05 12:07:25 | Re: pgbench - add pseudo-random permutation function |
| Previous Message | Amul Sul | 2021-04-05 11:57:17 | Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY |