MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E1u24yn-003Ggy-01@gemulon.postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <E1u24yn-003Ggy-01@gemulon.postgresql.org>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:31:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+Tgmoaey-kOP1k5FaUnQFd1fR0majVebWcL8ogfLbG_nt-Ytg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add function to get memory context stats for processes
To: Daniel Gustafsson <dgustafsson@postgresql.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, 
	Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoaey-kOP1k5FaUnQFd1fR0majVebWcL8ogfLbG_nt-Ytg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 5:10=E2=80=AFAM Daniel Gustafsson
<dgustafsson@postgresql.org> wrote:
> Add function to get memory context stats for processes

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but what is the argument
that it is safe to do everything in ProcessGetMemoryContextInterrupt()
at an arbitrary CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call? We have
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls in some quite low-level places, such as
walkdir() and copydir(). I don't think there's any guarantee that it's
safe to perform DSA operations at an arbitrary place where
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() is called, and I'm not even quite sure that
it's safe to assume that the local memory-context tree is in a
consistent state when CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() is called. If there is
some existing discussion of this that I should read, please point me
in the right direction; I didn't see anything in a quick look through
the commit.

Thanks,

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com