Re: Draft for basic NUMA observability

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
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> 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 just focus till v21-0003 (and discard v21-0004 for 18).
> 
> Do you mean discard pg_buffercache_numa (0002+0003) and instead go
> with pg_shm_allocations_numa (0004) ?

No I meant the opposite: focus on 0001, 0002 and 0003 for 18. But if Tomas is
confident enough to also focus in addition to 0004, that's fine too.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com