From: | Mircea Cadariu <cadariu(dot)mircea(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add os_page_num to pg_buffercache |
Date: | 2025-07-24 14:30:06 |
Message-ID: | e11896e2-9bc9-4994-ab1b-ccf6245d4b02@gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Thanks for the update! I tried v5 and it returns the expected results on
my laptop, same as before.
Just two further remarks for your consideration.
> + <para>
> + number of OS memory page for this buffer
> + </para></entry>
Let's capitalize the first letter here.
> +-- Check that the functions / views can't be accessed by default. To avoid
> +-- having to create a dedicated user, use the pg_database_owner pseudo-role.
> +SET ROLE pg_database_owner;
> +SELECT count(*) > 0 FROM pg_buffercache_os_pages;
> +RESET role;
> +
> +-- Check that pg_monitor is allowed to query view / function
> +SET ROLE pg_monitor;
> +SELECT count(*) > 0 FROM pg_buffercache_os_pages;
> +RESET role;
In the existing pg_buffercache.sql there are sections similar to the
above (SET ROLE pg_database_owner/pg_monitor ... RESET role), with a
couple of different SELECT statements within. Should we rather add the
above new SELECTs there, instead of in the new pg_buffercache_os_pages.sql?
Kind regards,
Mircea Cadariu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-07-24 14:31:32 | Re: trivial grammar refactor |
Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2025-07-24 14:19:34 | Re: CAST(... ON DEFAULT) - WIP build on top of Error-Safe User Functions |