Re: Review: DTrace probes (merged version)
От | Zdenek Kotala |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Review: DTrace probes (merged version) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 486E62DA.3060504@sun.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Review: DTrace probes (merged version) (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera napsal(a): > Zdenek Kotala wrote: >> Tom Lane napsal(a): > >>> I see no value in cluttering the system with useless probes. The worker >>> start/stop are the only ones here with any conceivable application IMHO. >> As I answered to Alvaro. I needed to catch start of backend several times >> to track call flow or attach debugger. It is possible to use some other >> dtrace magic for that, but it is not easy and there is not way how to >> determine what kind of process it is. For example how to measure how >> many writes performs bgwriter? > > If you need to attach a debugger to a backend, you can use the -W switch > (even on PGOPTIONS if you need it for a particular backend, AFAIR). If > you want to "truss" it I guess you can use -W too. > > Does it have any usefulness beyond that? > Why use million of tools when you can use one? And truss monitors only syscalls but with dtrace you are able to use/trace over 80000 probes in the kernel, libc and so on. I agree that for debugger you can use -W option but in situation when you are not able to use this switch (e.g on customer production machine) dtrace is only possible solution. That is why I think that this probes are useful. Zdenek -- Zdenek Kotala Sun Microsystems Prague, Czech Republic http://sun.com/postgresql
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: