Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process

On 2020/08/20 0:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hadn't been paying attention to this thread up till now, but ...
> 
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>> By the way, I was looking at the code that has been committed, and I
>> think that it is awkward to have a SQL function in mcxt.c, which is a
>> rather low-level interface.  I think that this new code should be
>> moved to its own file, one suggestion for a location I have being
>> src/backend/utils/adt/mcxtfuncs.c.
> 
> I agree with that, but I think this patch has a bigger problem:
> why bother at all?  It seems like a waste of code space and future
> maintenance effort, because there is no use-case.  In the situations
> where you need to know where the memory went, you are almost never
> in a position to leisurely execute a query and send the results over
> to your client.  This certainly would be useless to figure out why
> an already-running query is eating space, for instance.
> 
> The only situation I could imagine where this would have any use is
> where there is long-term (cross-query) bloat in, say, CacheMemoryContext

Yes, this feature is useful to check a cross-query memory bloat like
the bloats of relcache, prepared statements, PL/pgSQL cache,
SMgrRelationHash, etc. For example, several years before, my colleague
investigated the cause of the memory bloat by using the almost same
feature that pg_cheat_funcs extension provides, and then found that
the cause was that the application forgot to release lots of SAVEPONT.


> --- but it's not even very helpful for that, since you can't examine
> anything finer-grain than a memory context.

Yes, but even that information can be good hint when investigating
the memory bloat.


> Plus you need to be
> running an interactive session, or else be willing to hack up your
> application to try to get it to inspect the view (and log the
> results somewhere) at useful times.
> 
> On top of all that, the functionality has Heisenberg problems,
> because simply using it changes what you are trying to observe,
> in complex and undocumented ways (not that the documentation
> would be of any use to non-experts anyway).
> 
> My own thoughts about improving the debugging situation would've been
> to create a way to send a signal to a session to make it dump its
> current memory map to the postmaster log (not the client, since the
> client is unlikely to be prepared to receive anything extraneous).
> But this is nothing like that.

I agree that we need something like this, i.e., the way to monitor the memory
usage of any process even during query running. OTOH, I think that the added
feature has a use case and is good as the first step.


> Given the lack of clear use-case, and the possibility (admittedly
> not strong) that this is still somehow a security hazard, I think
> we should revert it.  If it stays, I'd like to see restrictions
> on who can read the view.

For example, allowing only the role with pg_monitor to see this view?

Regards,

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