Re: Broken stuff in new dtrace probes
От | Robert Lor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Broken stuff in new dtrace probes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 49C95365.6030000@sun.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Broken stuff in new dtrace probes (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > >> 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. > I like this solution. From my perspective, it's always better to give the script writer the flexibility to pick and choose the data s/she wants to see and at the same time avoid adding new probes unnecessarily. -Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: