Hi,
On 2023-02-16 14:19:24 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> After fixing up the set_ps_display()s to use set_ps_display_with_len()
> where possible, I discovered some not so nice code which appends "
> waiting" onto the process title. Basically, there's a bunch of code
> that looks like this:
>
> const char *old_status;
> int len;
>
> old_status = get_ps_display(&len);
> new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 8 + 1);
> memcpy(new_status, old_status, len);
> strcpy(new_status + len, " waiting");
> set_ps_display(new_status);
> new_status[len] = '\0'; /* truncate off " waiting" */
Yea, that code is atrocious... It took me a while to figure out that no,
LockBufferForCleanup() isn't leaking memory, because it'll always reach the
cleanup path *further up* in the function.
Avoiding the allocation across loop iterations seems like a completely
pointless optimization in these paths - we add the " waiting", precisely
because it's a slow path. But of course not allocating memory would be even
better...
> Seeing that made me wonder if we shouldn't just have something more
> generic for setting a suffix on the process title. I came up with
> set_ps_display_suffix() and set_ps_display_remove_suffix(). The above
> code can just become:
>
> set_ps_display_suffix("waiting");
>
> then to remove the "waiting" suffix, just:
>
> set_ps_display_remove_suffix();
That'd definitely be better.
It's not really a topic for this patch, but somehow the fact that we have
these set_ps_display() calls all over feels wrong, particularly because most
of them are paired with a pgstat_report_activity() call. It's not entirely
obvious how it should be instead, but it doesn't feel right.
> +/*
> + * set_ps_display_suffix
> + * Adjust the process title to append 'suffix' onto the end with a space
> + * between it and the current process title.
> + */
> +void
> +set_ps_display_suffix(const char *suffix)
> +{
> + size_t len;
Think this will give you an unused-variable warning in the PS_USE_NONE case.
> +#ifndef PS_USE_NONE
> + /* update_process_title=off disables updates */
> + if (!update_process_title)
> + return;
> +
> + /* no ps display for stand-alone backend */
> + if (!IsUnderPostmaster)
> + return;
> +
> +#ifdef PS_USE_CLOBBER_ARGV
> + /* If ps_buffer is a pointer, it might still be null */
> + if (!ps_buffer)
> + return;
> +#endif
This bit is now repeated three times. How about putting it into a helper?
> +#ifndef PS_USE_NONE
> +static void
> +set_ps_display_internal(void)
Very very minor nit: Perhaps this should be update_ps_display() or
flush_ps_display() instead?
Greetings,
Andres Freund