Re: pg_shmem_allocations & documentation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Benoit Lobréau
Subject Re: pg_shmem_allocations & documentation
Date
Msg-id CAPE8EZ4dk54dcWayR0f-WWyYAbri8VP3gWJaucqGdUF4MQrwyA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_shmem_allocations & documentation  (Benoit Lobréau <benoit.lobreau@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_shmem_allocations & documentation
List pgsql-hackers
Here's a proposal patch.

Le ven. 11 déc. 2020 à 09:58, Benoit Lobréau <benoit.lobreau@gmail.com> a écrit :
Would "NULL for anonymous allocations, since details related to them are not known." be ok ?


Le ven. 11 déc. 2020 à 09:29, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> a écrit :
At Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:42:45 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 11:00:58AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > Although we could just rip some words off, I'd like to propose instead
> > to add an explanation why it is not exposed for anonymous allocations,
> > like the column allocated_size.
>
> Indeed, there is a hiccup between what the code does and what the docs
> tell: the offset is not NULL for unused memory.
>
> > -       The offset at which the allocation starts. NULL for anonymous
> > -       allocations and unused memory.
> > +       The offset at which the allocation starts. For anonymous allocations,
> > +       no information about individual allocations is available, so the column
> > +       will be NULL in that case.
>
> I'd say: let's be simple and just remove "and unused memory" because
> anonymous allocations are...  Anonymous so you cannot know details
> related to them.  That's something easy to reason about, and the docs
> were written originally to remain simple.

Hmm. I don't object to that.  Howerver, isn't the description for
allocated_size too verbose in that sense?

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Misleading comment in prologue of ReorderBufferQueueMessage