On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:29 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi! v15 attached, rebased, CI-tested, all fixed incorporated.
> > I've adjusted it all and settled on "numa_node_id" column name.
>
[...]
> I think that we can get rid of the "numa_" stuff in column(s) name as
> the column(s) are part of "numa" relation views/output anyway.
[...]
Done, you are probably right (it was done to keep consistency between
those two views probably), I'm just not that strongly attached to the
naming things.
> > Please do such a check,
>
> Found much more:
>
[.. 9 issues with missing dots at the end of sentences in comments +
fixes to comment structure in relation to HEAD..]
All fixed.
> > BTW if patch has anything left that
> > causes pgident to fix, that is not picked by CI but it is picked by
> > buildfarm??
>
> I think it has to be done manually before each commit and that this is anyway
> done at least once per release cycle.
OK, thanks for clarification.
[..]
> >
> > But 0002 used:
> >
> > "In order to get reliable results we also need to touch memory pages, so that
> > inquiry about NUMA zone doesn't return -2 (which indicates
> > unmapped/unallocated
> > pages)"
> >
> > or are you looking at something different?
>
> Nope, I meant to say that it could make sense to have the exact same comment.
Synced those two.
[..]
>
> 0001 looks in a good shape from my point of view.
Cool!
> For 0002:
>
> === 1
>
> I wonder if pg_buffercache_init_entries() and pg_buffercache_build_tuple() could
> deserve their own patch. That would ease the review for the "real" numa stuff.
>
Done, 0001+0002 alone passes the meson test.
-J.
