From: Tomas Vondra
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 6:59 AM
To: Jakub Wartak
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot ; Andres Freund
; Alvaro Herrera ; Nazir Bilal
Yavuz ; PostgreSQL Hackers
Subject: Re: Draft for basic NUMA observability
On 4/7/25 23:50, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:27
On 4/7/25 19:24, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-04-04 19:07:12 +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
>> They actually look good to me. We've discussed earlier dropping
>> s/numa_//g for column names (after all views contain it already) so
>> they are fine in this regard.
>> There's also the question of consis
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 9:51 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > So it looks like that the new way to iterate on the buffers that has been
> > introduced
> > in v26/v27 has some issue?
> >
>
> Yeah, the calculations of the end pointers were wrong - we need to round
> up (using TYPEALIGN()) when calculatin
Hi,
On 2025-04-07 19:59:59 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> This reminds me whether it's fine to have "os_page_num" as int. Should
> we make it bigint, perhaps?
Yes, that's better. Seems very unlikely anybody will encounter this in the
next few years, but it's basically free to use the larger range h
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:46:16PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 4/8/25 01:26, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (SXD Japan FSI) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for developing this great feature.
> > The manual says that the 'size' column of the pg_shmem_allocations_numa
> > view is 'int4', but the
On 4/9/25 17:51, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-09 17:28:31 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 4/9/25 17:14, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> I'd mention that the includes of postgres.h/fmgr.h is what caused missing
>>> build-time dependencies and via that failures on buildfarm member dogfish.
>>
On 4/9/25 17:14, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-09 16:33:14 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> From e1f093d091610d70fba72b2848f25ff44899ea8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Tomas Vondra
>> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 23:31:29 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Cleanup of pg_numa.c
>>
>> This moves/r
On 4/9/25 01:29, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-09 01:10:09 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 4/8/25 15:06, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 23:00, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I'll let the CI run the tests o
Hi,
On 2025-04-09 17:28:31 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/9/25 17:14, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'd mention that the includes of postgres.h/fmgr.h is what caused missing
> > build-time dependencies and via that failures on buildfarm member dogfish.
> >
>
> Not really, I also need to include "c
Hi,
On 2025-04-09 16:33:14 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> From e1f093d091610d70fba72b2848f25ff44899ea8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tomas Vondra
> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 23:31:29 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Cleanup of pg_numa.c
>
> This moves/renames some of the functions defined in pg_numa.c
Updated patches with proper commit messages etc.
--
Tomas Vondra
From e1f093d091610d70fba72b2848f25ff44899ea8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tomas Vondra
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 23:31:29 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Cleanup of pg_numa.c
This moves/renames some of the functions defined in pg_numa.c
On 4/9/25 14:07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> ...
>
> OK, here are two patches, where 0001 adds the missingdeps check to the
> Debian meson build. It just adds that to the build script.
>
> 0002 leaves the NUMA stuff in src/port (i.e. it's no longer moved to
> src/backend/port). It still needs to includ
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 12:48 AM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/8/25 16:59, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2025-04-08 09:35:37 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On April 8, 2025 9:21:57 AM EDT, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >>> On 4/8/25 15:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +0500,
On 4/8/25 15:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 23:00, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> I'll let the CI run the tests on it, and
>>> then will push, unless someone has more comments.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi! I noticed strange failure afte
On 4/8/25 15:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 23:00, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> I'll let the CI run the tests on it, and
>>> then will push, unless someone has more comments.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi! I noticed strange failure a
Hi,
On 2025-04-09 01:10:09 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/8/25 15:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 23:00, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >>> I'll let the CI run the tests on it, and
> >>> then will push, unless someo
Hi,
On 2025-04-09 00:47:59 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/8/25 16:59, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2025-04-08 09:35:37 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On April 8, 2025 9:21:57 AM EDT, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >>> On 4/8/25 15:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +05
On 4/8/25 16:59, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-08 09:35:37 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On April 8, 2025 9:21:57 AM EDT, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> On 4/8/25 15:06, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
I think it's not right that something
Hi,
On 2025-04-08 09:35:37 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On April 8, 2025 9:21:57 AM EDT, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >On 4/8/25 15:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> >> I think it's not right that something in src/port defines an SQL callable
> >> functi
Hi,
On April 8, 2025 9:21:57 AM EDT, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>On 4/8/25 15:06, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 23:00, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I'll let the CI run the tests on it, and
then will push, unless someone
Hi,
On 2025-04-08 17:44:19 +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 23:00, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > I'll let the CI run the tests on it, and
> > then will push, unless someone has more comments.
> >
>
>
> Hi! I noticed strange failure after this commit[0]
>
> Looks like it is related
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 23:00, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I'll let the CI run the tests on it, and
> then will push, unless someone has more comments.
>
Hi! I noticed strange failure after this commit[0]
Looks like it is related to 65c298f61fc70f2f960437c05649f71b862e2c48
In file included from [01m
On 4/8/25 01:26, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (SXD Japan FSI) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for developing this great feature.
> The manual says that the 'size' column of the pg_shmem_allocations_numa view
> is 'int4', but the implementation is 'int8'.
> The attached small patch fixes the manual.
>
Thank
On 4/7/25 17:51, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-06 13:56:54 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 4/6/25 01:00, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2025-04-05 18:29:22 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
I think one thing that the docs should mention is that calling the numa
functions/views will f
On 4/7/25 23:50, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:27 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've pushed all three parts of v29, with some additional corrections
>> (picked lower OIDs, bumped catversion, fixed commit messages).
>
> Hi Tomas, great, awesome! (this is an awesome fe
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:27 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've pushed all three parts of v29, with some additional corrections
> (picked lower OIDs, bumped catversion, fixed commit messages).
Hi Tomas, great, awesome! (this is an awesome feeling)! Thank You for
such incredible support on th
Hi,
I've pushed all three parts of v29, with some additional corrections
(picked lower OIDs, bumped catversion, fixed commit messages).
On 4/7/25 23:01, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 9:51 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>>> So it looks like that the new way to iterate on the buffers tha
On 4/7/25 20:11, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 12:42:21PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2025-04-07 18:36:24 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking of checking if the BufferDesc indicates BM_VALID or
>> BM_TAG_VALID.
>
> Yeah, that's what I did
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 12:42:21PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-07 18:36:24 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> I was thinking of checking if the BufferDesc indicates BM_VALID or
> BM_TAG_VALID.
Yeah, that's what I did propose in [1] (when we were speaking about
get_mempolic
On 2025-04-04 19:07:12 +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> They actually look good to me. We've discussed earlier dropping
> s/numa_//g for column names (after all views contain it already) so
> they are fine in this regard.
> There's also the question of consistency: (bufferid, page_num,
> node_id) -- ma
On 4/7/25 18:42, Andres Freund wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> Of course that would mean that we'd always need to
>>> pg_numa_touch_mem_if_required(), not just the first time round, because we
>>> previously might not have for a page that is now valid. But compared to the
>>> cost of actually allocating page
Hi,
On 2025-04-07 18:36:24 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > Forcing all those pages to be allocated via pg_numa_touch_mem_if_required()
> > itself wouldn't be too bad - in fact I'd rather like to have an explicit way
> > of doing that. The problem is that that leads to all those allocations to
> >
Hi,
On 2025-04-06 13:51:34 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/6/25 00:29, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> +
> >> + if (firstNumaTouch)
> >> + elog(DEBUG1, "NUMA: page-faulting the buffercache for
> >> proper NUMA readouts");
> >
> > Over the patchseries the related code is dup
Hi,
On 2025-04-06 13:56:54 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/6/25 01:00, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2025-04-05 18:29:22 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I think one thing that the docs should mention is that calling the numa
> >> functions/views will force the pages to be allocated, even if they'
Hi,
Here's a v26 of this patch series, merging the various fixup patches.
I've also reordered the patches so that the pg_buffercache part is last.
The two other patches are ready to go, and it seems better to push the
built-in catalog before the pg_buffercache contrib module.
For 0001 and 0002, I
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:53 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 10:09:26AM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > Bertrand noticed this first in
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z/FhOOCmTxuB2h0b%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
> > :
> >
> > - s
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 10:09:26AM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> Bertrand noticed this first in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z/FhOOCmTxuB2h0b%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
> :
>
> - startptr = (char *) BufferGetBlock(1);
> + startptr = (char
On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 3:52 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On 4/6/25 14:57, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 12:29 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >
> > Hi Andres/Tomas,
> >
> > I've noticed that Tomas responded to this while writing this, so I'm
> > attaching git-am patches bas
On 4/6/25 14:57, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 12:29 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>
> Hi Andres/Tomas,
>
> I've noticed that Tomas responded to this while writing this, so I'm
> attaching git-am patches based on his v25 (no squash) and there's only
> one new (last one cont
On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 12:29 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi Andres/Tomas,
I've noticed that Tomas responded to this while writing this, so I'm
attaching git-am patches based on his v25 (no squash) and there's only
one new (last one contains fixes based on this review) + slight commit
amendme
On 4/6/25 01:00, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-05 18:29:22 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I think one thing that the docs should mention is that calling the numa
>> functions/views will force the pages to be allocated, even if they're
>> currently unused.
>>
>> Newly started server,
On 4/6/25 00:29, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just played around with this for a bit. As noted somewhere further down,
> pg_buffercache_numa.page_num ends up wonky in different ways for the different
> pages.
>
> I think one thing that the docs should mention is that calling the numa
> funct
Hi,
On 2025-04-05 18:29:22 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think one thing that the docs should mention is that calling the numa
> functions/views will force the pages to be allocated, even if they're
> currently unused.
>
> Newly started server, with s_b of 32GB an 2MB huge pages:
>
> grep ^H
Hi,
I just played around with this for a bit. As noted somewhere further down,
pg_buffercache_numa.page_num ends up wonky in different ways for the different
pages.
I think one thing that the docs should mention is that calling the numa
functions/views will force the pages to be allocated, even
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 10:23 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi Bertrand,
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 09:01:43AM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
[..]
> === v21-0002
> While pg_buffercache_build_tuple() is not added (pg_buffercache_save_tuple()
> is).
Fixed
> About v21-0002:
>
> === 1
>
> I can se
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 5:11 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> Thanks for v13!
Rebased and fixes inside in the attached v14 (it passes CI too):
> Looking at 0003:
>
> === 1
>
> + NUMA mappings for shared memory allocations
>
> s/NUMA mappings/NUMA node mappings/ maybe?
Done.
> === 2
>
> +
>
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 5:27 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi Jakub,
Hi Bertrand,
> > OK, but I still fail to grasp why pg_indent doesnt fix this stuff on
> > it's own... I believe orginal ident, would fix this on it's own?
>
> My comment was not about indention but about the fact that I think t
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 03:23:38PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Something like that. But I think it should be "align the size of ...",
> we're not aligning the start.
>
> >> - There's a comment at the end which talks about "ignored segments".
> >> IMHO that type of information should be in th
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 04:33:28PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/5/25 15:23, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > I was thinking we'd change the definition of the existing page_num
> > column, i.e. it wouldn't be 0..N sequence for each buffer, but a global
> > page ID. But I don't know if this would be
On 4/5/25 15:23, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/5/25 11:37, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 09:25:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> OK,
>>>
>>> here's v25 after going through the patches once more, fixing the issues
>>> mentioned by Bertrand, etc.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> I t
On 4/5/25 11:37, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 09:25:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> OK,
>>
>> here's v25 after going through the patches once more, fixing the issues
>> mentioned by Bertrand, etc.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> I think 0001 and 0002 are fine,
>
> Agree, I just
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 09:25:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> OK,
>
> here's v25 after going through the patches once more, fixing the issues
> mentioned by Bertrand, etc.
Thanks!
> I think 0001 and 0002 are fine,
Agree, I just have some cosmetic nits comments: please find them in
nit-be
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 6:40 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi Tomas,
> OK, so you agree the commit messages are complete / correct?
Yes.
> OK. FWIW if you disagree with some of my proposed changes, feel free to
> push back. I'm sure some may be more a matter of personal preference.
No, it's all fine.
OK,
here's v25 after going through the patches once more, fixing the issues
mentioned by Bertrand, etc. I think 0001 and 0002 are fine, I have a
couple minor questions about 0003.
0002
- Adds the new types to typedefs.list, to make pgindent happy.
- Improves comment for pg_buffercache_numa_p
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 4:36 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi Tomas,
> Do you have any suggestions regarding the column names in the new view?
> I'm not sure I like node_id and page_num.
They actually look good to me. We've discussed earlier dropping
s/numa_//g for column names (after all views contain
On 4/4/25 08:50, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 08:53:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 4/3/25 15:12, Jakub Wartak wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:52 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>
...
So unless someone can demonstrate a use case where this would matt
On 4/4/25 09:35, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 8:50 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 08:53:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> On 4/3/25 15:12, Jakub Wartak wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:52 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> ...
>
>>
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 8:50 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 08:53:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > On 4/3/25 15:12, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:52 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > >
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> So unless someone can demonstrate a use
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 08:53:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/3/25 15:12, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:52 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >>
> >> So unless someone can demonstrate a use case where this would matter,
> >> I'd not worry about it too much.
> >
On 4/3/25 15:12, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:52 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> So unless someone can demonstrate a use case where this would matter,
>> I'd not worry about it too much.
>
> OK, fine for me - just 3 cols for pg_buffercache_numa is fine for me,
> it's just
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:52 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/3/25 09:01, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 6:40 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi Tomas,
Here's v23 attached (had to rework it because the you sent v22 just
the moment you I wanted to send it) Change include:
- your review shoul
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 2:15 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Ah, OK. Jakub, can you correct (and double-check) this in the next
> version of the patch?
Done.
> > About v21-0002:
> >
> > === 1
> >
> > I can see that the pg_buffercache_init_entries() helper comments are added
> > in
> > v21-0003 but I t
Hi Jakub,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 02:36:57PM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 10:23 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> Right, we could also put it as a limitation. I would be happy to leave
> it as it must be a rare condition, but Tomas stated he's not.
>
> > Also maybe we should
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:17 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've spent a bit of time reviewing this. In general I haven't found
> anything I'd call a bug, but here's a couple comments for v18 ... Most
> of this is in separate "review" commits, with a couple exceptions.
Hi, thank you very much
On 4/3/25 10:23, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 09:01:43AM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 6:40 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tomas,
>>
>>> OK, so you agree the commit messages are complete / correct?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Not 100% sure on my side.
>
On 4/3/25 09:01, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 6:40 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Hi Tomas,
>
>> OK, so you agree the commit messages are complete / correct?
>
> Yes.
>
>> OK. FWIW if you disagree with some of my proposed changes, feel free to
>> push back. I'm sure some may be mor
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 09:01:43AM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 6:40 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Hi Tomas,
>
> > OK, so you agree the commit messages are complete / correct?
>
> Yes.
Not 100% sure on my side.
=== v21-0002
Says:
"
This introduces three new functio
On 4/2/25 16:46, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:17 PM Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've spent a bit of time reviewing this. In general I haven't found
>> anything I'd call a bug, but here's a couple comments for v18 ... Most
>> of this is in separate "review" commits, wi
Hi Jakub,
On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 04:45:53PM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 5:13 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> >
> > === 4
> >
> > + for (i = 0; i < NBuffers; i++)
> > + {
> > + int blk2page = (int) i *
>
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 5:13 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 4:59 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> >
> > Hi Bertrand, happy to see you back, thanks for review and here's v18
> > att
Hi,
I've spent a bit of time reviewing this. In general I haven't found
anything I'd call a bug, but here's a couple comments for v18 ... Most
of this is in separate "review" commits, with a couple exceptions.
1) Please update the commit messages, with proper formatting, etc. I
tried to do that i
Hi Jakub,
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 12:56:06PM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 4:59 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Bertrand, happy to see you back, thanks for review and here's v18
> attached (an ideal fit for PG18 ;))
Thanks for the new version!
=== About v1
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 4:59 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Bertrand, happy to see you back, thanks for review and here's v18
attached (an ideal fit for PG18 ;))
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 2:40 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 2:40 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > +Size
> > > +pg_numa_get_pagesize(void)
> [..]
> >
> > Should this have a comment or an assertion that it can only be used after
> > shared memory startup? Because be
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 2:40 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi Andres,
> On 2025-03-27 14:02:03 +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> >setup_additional_packages_script: |
> > -#apt-get update
> > -#DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive apt-get -y install ...
> > +apt-get update
> > +DEBIAN_
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 2:15 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hello
Good morning :)
> I think you should remove numa_warn() and numa_error() from 0001.
> AFAICS they are dead code (even with all your patches applied), and
> furthermore would get you in trouble regarding memory allocation because
> sr
Hi,
On 2025-03-27 14:02:03 +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
>setup_additional_packages_script: |
> -#apt-get update
> -#DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive apt-get -y install ...
> +apt-get update
> +DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive apt-get -y install \
> + libnuma1 \
> + libnuma-
Hello
I think you should remove numa_warn() and numa_error() from 0001.
AFAICS they are dead code (even with all your patches applied), and
furthermore would get you in trouble regarding memory allocation because
src/port is not allowed to use palloc et al. If you wanted to keep them
you'd have t
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 12:31 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for working on this!
>
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 12:06, Jakub Wartak
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:29 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi! v15 attached, rebased, CI-tested, all fixed incorporated.
>
Hi,
Thank you for working on this!
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 12:06, Jakub Wartak
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:29 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
> Hi! v15 attached, rebased, CI-tested, all fixed incorporated.
This needs to be rebased after 8eadd5c73c.
--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Micros
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:29 PM Bertrand Drouvot
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 "n
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 11:19:32AM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 5:11 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for v13!
>
> Rebased and fixes inside in the attached v14 (it passes CI too):
Thanks!
> > === 9
> >
> > + max_zones = pg_numa_get_max_node();
> >
>
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 08:28:46AM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:08 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> >
> > I did prepare a patch file (attached as .txt to not disturb the cfbot) to
> > apply
> > on top of v11 0002 (I just rebased it a bit so that it now applies on top
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:08 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:05:28AM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 3:15 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thank you very much for the review! I'm answering to both reviews in
> > one go and the resul
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 02:15:14PM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > > === 19
> > >
> >
> > Can you please take a look again on this
>
> Sure, will do.
> I'll have a look at v11 soon.
About 0001:
=== 1
git am produces:
.git/rebase-apply/patch:378: new blank line at EOF.
+
.git/rebase
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:05:28AM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 3:15 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you very much for the review! I'm answering to both reviews in
> one go and the results is attached v12, seems it all should be solved
> now:
Thanks f
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 3:15 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
Hi,
Thank you very much for the review! I'm answering to both reviews in
one go and the results is attached v12, seems it all should be solved
now:
> > > === 2
> > >
> > > +else
> > > + as_fn_error $? "header file is required for --with-
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 04:41:15PM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:14 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the new version!
>
> v10 is attached with most fixes after review and one new thing
> introduced: pg_numa_available() for run-time decision inside test
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 4:41 PM Jakub Wartak
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:14 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the new version!
>
> v10 is attached with most fixes after review and one new thing
> introduced: pg_numa_available() for run-time decision inside tests
> which was
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:14 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> Thanks for the new version!
v10 is attached with most fixes after review and one new thing
introduced: pg_numa_available() for run-time decision inside tests
which was needed after simplifying code a little bit as you wanted.
I've also f
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:33:27PM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:20 AM Jakub Wartak
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:30 AM Jakub Wartak
> > wrote:
> > >Hi,
> >
> > > > Yeah, that's why I was mentioning to use a "shared"
> > > > populate_buffercache
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:20 AM Jakub Wartak
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:30 AM Jakub Wartak
> wrote:
> >Hi,
>
> > > Yeah, that's why I was mentioning to use a "shared"
> > > populate_buffercache_entry()
> > > or such function: to put the "duplicated" code in it and then use this
>
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:30 AM Jakub Wartak
wrote:
>Hi,
> > Yeah, that's why I was mentioning to use a "shared"
> > populate_buffercache_entry()
> > or such function: to put the "duplicated" code in it and then use this
> > shared function in pg_buffercache_pages() and in the new numa relat
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 5:02 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> > Cool! Attached is v7
> Thanks for the new version!
... and another one: 7b ;)
> > > === 2
[..]
> > Well, I've made query_numa a parameter there simply to avoid that code
> > duplication in the first place, look at those TupleDescInitEnt
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:48:31AM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 4:34 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
>
> > I did some tests and it looks like it's giving correct results. I don't see
> > -2
> > anymore and every backend reports correct distribution (with or wit
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 4:34 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> I did some tests and it looks like it's giving correct results. I don't see -2
> anymore and every backend reports correct distribution (with or without hp,
> with "small" or "large" shared buffer).
Cool! Attached is v7 that is fully
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 09:38:20AM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 3:06 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Why is this done before we even have gotten -2 back? Even if we need it, it
> > seems like we ought to defer this until necessary.
>
> Not fixed yet: maybe we could ev
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:05:46AM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 6:13 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> [..]
> > > Meanwhile v5 is attached with slight changes to try to make cfbot happy:
> >
> > Thanks for the updated version!
> >
> > FWIW, I had to do a few changes to ge
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 6:13 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
[..]
> > Meanwhile v5 is attached with slight changes to try to make cfbot happy:
>
> Thanks for the updated version!
>
> FWIW, I had to do a few changes to get an error free compiling experience with
> autoconf/or meson and both with or with
Hi Jakub,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 09:48:41AM +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 5:11 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 09:06:20AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Does the issue with "new" backends seeing pages as not present exist both
>
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
