Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 2020/08/24 13:01, torikoshia wrote:
> On 2020-08-22 21:18, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 
> Thanks for reviewing!
> 
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:27:06PM +0900, torikoshia wrote:
>>> OK. Added a regression test on sysviews.sql.
>>> (0001-Added-a-regression-test-for-pg_backend_memory_contex.patch)
>>>
>>> Fujii-san gave us an example, but I added more simple one considering
>>> the simplicity of other tests on that.
>>
>> What you have sent in 0001 looks fine to me.  A small test is much
>> better than nothing.

+1

But as I proposed upthread, what about a bit complicated test as follows,
e.g., to confirm that the internal logic for level works expectedly?

      SELECT name, ident, parent, level, total_bytes >= free_bytes FROM pg_backend_memory_contexts WHERE level = 0;


>>
>>> Added a patch for relocating the codes to mcxtfuncs.c.
>>> (patches/0001-Rellocated-the-codes-for-pg_backend_memory_contexts-.patch)

Thanks for the patch! Looks good to me.
Barring any objection, I will commit this patch at first.


>>
>> The same code is moved around line-by-line.
>>
>>> Of course, this restriction makes pg_backend_memory_contexts hard to use
>>> when the user of the target session is not granted pg_monitor because the
>>> scope of this view is session local.
>>>
>>> In this case, I imagine additional operations something like temporarily
>>> granting pg_monitor to that user.
>>
>> Hmm.  I am not completely sure either that pg_monitor is the best fit
>> here, because this view provides information about a bunch of internal
>> structures.  Something that could easily be done though is to revoke
>> the access from public, and then users could just set up GRANT
>> permissions post-initdb, with pg_monitor as one possible choice.  This
>> is the safest path by default, and this stuff is of a caliber similar
>> to pg_shmem_allocations in terms of internal contents.
> 
> I think this is a better way than what I did in
> 0001-Rellocated-the-codes-for-pg_backend_memory_contexts-.patch.

You mean 0001-Restrict-the-access-to-pg_backend_memory_contexts-to.patch?


> Attached a patch.

Thanks for updating the patch! This also looks good to me.


>> It seems to me that you are missing one "REVOKE ALL on
>> pg_backend_memory_contexts FROM PUBLIC" in patch 0003.
>>
>> By the way, if that was just for me, I would remove used_bytes, which
>> is just a computation from the total and free numbers.  I'll defer
>> that point to Fujii-san.

Yeah, I was just thinking that displaying also used_bytes was useful,
but this might be inconsistent with the other views' ways.

Regards,

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