Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 11:03:05 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
	Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>,
	Don Seiler <don@seiler.us>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
Message-ID: <YTq82THcfR0jnqDw@paquier.xyz>
References: <YTV8l8V+uKVcTVnV@paquier.xyz>
 <89EFD5FB-3C28-459C-9D6D-C9F93F7C2A54@amazon.com>
 <YTbjyHkTa2xBdzgf@paquier.xyz>
 <578A8F79-FD13-4408-865F-4D31EE5D8123@amazon.com>
 <YTgy8PdP1+9s6NBz@paquier.xyz>
 <4cc5b434-b174-9aae-197b-737db6cac4e3@oss.nttdata.com>
 <C35CB94F-D391-4E52-AB08-A726112FA852@amazon.com>
 <YTmLQtpUSK77mlGT@paquier.xyz>
 <YTmMLtoLEAjMuRSm@paquier.xyz>
 <6AE0285D-0917-4C05-B6AA-4AEDD2FCBA52@amazon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/rHY6cqwXo4BOnzS"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6AE0285D-0917-4C05-B6AA-4AEDD2FCBA52@amazon.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YTq82THcfR0jnqDw%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--/rHY6cqwXo4BOnzS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 09:53:22PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> For 0002, I have two small concerns.  My first concern is that it
> might be confusing to customers when the runtime GUCs cannot be
> returned for a running server.  We have the note in the docs, but if
> you're encountering it on the command line, it's not totally clear
> what the problem is.

Yeah, that's true.  There are more unlikely-to-happen errors that
could be triggered and prevent the command to work.  I have never
tried using error_context_stack in a code path as early as that, to be
honest.

> Running these commands with log_min_messages=debug5 emits way more
> information for the runtime-computed GUCs than for others, but IMO
> that is alright.  However, perhaps we should adjust the logging in
> 0002 to improve the default user experience.  I attached an attempt at
> that.

Registered bgworkers would generate a DEBUG entry, for one.

> I'm not tremendously happy with the patch, but I hope that it at least
> helps with the discussion.

As far as the behavior is documented, I'd be fine with the approach to
keep the code in its simplest shape.  I agree that the message is
confusing, still it is not wrong either as we try to query a run-time
parameter, but we need the lock.
--
Michael

--/rHY6cqwXo4BOnzS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAmE6vNkACgkQnvQgOdby
QH1ZkBAAn+H5NyOUWtO8IXdBUZQNV83fapDdqKD+AUbKN1uGHKzBqiAZJVtvwJUy
KpR7D/smixsuoBBhRLi9oLXUCUMjn9DelRbFu+HEdfA/B/egg8A54JZgjmzHw/Fe
n1UmfKXurXRb8OkWtv1kkjPqancEfPPrnOYcC9FzIuiF+04JD97xLrVkuvoUlc1V
EFr46fuYaTvih3AGOAj97hS53Pj0FardhTH3rE8S5Evpb4MHtOWwmNhJWZ6NG+dw
Zs8zAmbwSKPqQ7xVudV8TInMgFgKgo8v9mCvkatMz5p6XVYZXRfTk9nj91gp47bi
jhfe7n3eGjEdg3JSrJ9P53fkniFyYcQ4soMQ5cAw5TVDwW+Bb5AGNAmiigxETiR3
/GIyMx7QoSCYxq+6PS/ZSAf4fFiHD5FtlDurH+K0UYDMCDkxvyCCC98xCJO9Pjtv
HlmrFTnmctOBDlCQ/cnhg4B7WmDsRQ2CF9inz8xEBPv22lLgbMRT4ZZsLK1MPWhd
6RwmkCmdjMRBUdzcxkkB4dfsDQWzc06HVQJLDzuZW6JZxhNREgwnujOTmRWPs1nX
GxOSOOByMCReDTaE/UgJsWVv9CcLwgmlRtYDPVksxwUDtPZhTxAnf/aA0zqYxjDQ
fruOP3m8SFb3eL/Q6unE/sq/FmzGaCgXsf1cf6FElI0yh4x6E+U=
=odUa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/rHY6cqwXo4BOnzS--