Re: pgsql: Introduce pg_shmem_allocations_numa view

Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>

From: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>

To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org

Date: 2025-06-23T15:20:12Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Handle EPERM in pg_numa_init
- 599336c64fc9 19 (unreleased) landed
- 482e98ac4302 18.2 landed
Add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS into pg_numa_query_pages
- 54ac4944c36f 18.0 landed
- bf1119d74a79 19 (unreleased) landed
Silence valgrind about pg_numa_touch_mem_if_required
- 14e52227e578 18.0 landed
- 81f287dc923f 19 (unreleased) landed
Limit the size of numa_move_pages requests
- 45879f48f140 18.0 landed
- 7fe2f67c7c9f 19 (unreleased) landed
Introduce pg_shmem_allocations_numa view
- 8cc139bec34a 18.0 cited

Re: Andres Freund
> > > Why do we try to force the pages to be allocated at all? This is just
> > > a monitoring function, it should not change the actual system state.
> 
> The problem is that the kernel function just gives bogus results for pages
> that *are* present in memory but that have only touched in another process
> that has mapped the same range of memory.

Ok, so we leave the touching in, but still defend against negative
status values?

Christoph