Re: pgsql: Introduce pg_shmem_allocations_numa view

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

To: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>

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

Date: 2025-06-23T16:26:22Z

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

Hi,

On 2025-06-23 17:59:24 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: To Andres Freund
> > Ok, so we leave the touching in, but still defend against negative
> > status values?
> 
> v2 attached.

How confident are we that this isn't actually because we passed a bogus
address to the kernel or such? With this patch, are *any* pages recognized as
valid on the machines that triggered the error?

I wonder if we ought to report the failures as a separate "numa node"
(e.g. NULL as node id) instead ...

Greetings,

Andres Freund