Message-ID: <437100f2-dd86-42e6-830c-5ff413a25e8e@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 08:28:09 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Enhancing Memory Context Statistics Reporting
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <CAExHW5skNvp265od6XPs0O-RL3cwtgHW3N87Ob0+nByZ=_HzAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2L28sMyRh_ZomRxkx_RdaQoLcyGAwKCr1TSmrVudbbR_Q1eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <F23526FA-407E-484B-88BC-4CA81C7CED52@yesql.se>
 <CAH2L28v9EU4dxKUpvMt_CFAzG72CYusPWxADsgT=cwFJP-fP0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D3689B96-DB1E-4160-AC5E-C2F4E2ACA8CD@yesql.se>
 <54FAE93D-E156-4684-9352-1CEDE6BD4A1C@yesql.se>
 <CAH2L28s+s4JJdPz2RkALzOvXpxXUcmm=fvg-Y6M82g9Cp=bB-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <F50279EA-E138-4C93-BCF5-8B2FC338BFA1@yesql.se>
 <5bxhxniyvjyfldi7yjxcnxkl3i2ghci2grjyeclrbkfqnyhowk@dfkqzbvtbpml>
 <B5BF7FC9-D9AA-4C43-AC28-8A6599056CC0@yesql.se>
 <tesneyk3z2dtrjgwlmkw2wbr7e3olwkowlpke6kl463hfhxedb@fyyqsnwjcp4l>
 <CAH2L28tp8RMa0CrCgdCJw20vFzeGQMuHkXAoPgYC5JZuXY8_+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <F12013F0-F54F-4C3D-92C5-76F8AE944CED@yesql.se>
 <B15D670F-D47B-40DF-A447-0773504B5217@yesql.se>
 <3eb40b3e-45c7-426a-b7f8-81f7d05a9b53@oss.nttdata.com>
 <74105887-E4EF-4CA2-9F0A-3C0CE05BF632@yesql.se>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
In-Reply-To: <74105887-E4EF-4CA2-9F0A-3C0CE05BF632@yesql.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/437100f2-dd86-42e6-830c-5ff413a25e8e%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 2025/04/09 6:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2025, at 18:41, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> 
>> I noticed that the third argument of pg_get_process_memory_contexts() is named
>> "retries" in pg_proc.dat, while the documentation refers to it as "timeout".
> 
> I've committed this patch as it was obviously correct, thanks!

Thanks a lot!

Since pg_proc.dat was modified, do we need to bump the catalog version?


>> Also, as I mentioned earlier, I encountered an issue when calling
>> pg_get_process_memory_contexts() on the PID of a backend that had just
>> encountered an error but hadn't finished rolling back. It led to
>> the following situation:
> 
> I reconfirmed that the bugfix that Rahila shared in [0] fixes this issue (and
> will fix others like it, as it's not related to this patch in particular but is
> a bug in DSM attaching).  My plan is to take that for a more thorough review
> and test tomorrow and see how far it can be safely backpatched.  Thanks for
> bringing this up, sorry about it getting a bit lost among all the emails.

Appreciate your work on this!

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION