Re: Broken stuff in new dtrace probes
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Broken stuff in new dtrace probes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18631.1237761731@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Broken stuff in new dtrace probes (Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Broken stuff in new dtrace probes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Furthermore, an isExtend call doesn't actually do a read(), so lumping >> them together with regular reads doesn't seem like quite the right thing >> for performance measurement purposes anyway. �Maybe we actually ought to >> have different probes for isExtend and regular cases. > i like the idea of just have a separate pair of probes for table > extension. I bet there are people who would actually like to see that > alone sometimes too. After further thought I concluded that the best solution for this is to add the isExtend flag to the buffer_read_start/read_done probe parameter lists. This allows the dtrace script writer to make the distinction if he chooses, without adding any extra overhead for normal non-traced operation. AFAICS using a separate probe type would add at least a couple of if-tests even with tracing turned off. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: