Re: [PATCHES] Generic Monitoring Framework with DTrace
От | korry |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] Generic Monitoring Framework with DTrace |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BAY101-DAV3851B07E2C52CCDC9FB03D6660@phx.gbl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] Generic Monitoring Framework with DTrace patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] Generic Monitoring Framework with DTrace
Re: [PATCHES] Generic Monitoring Framework with DTrace |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<br /><blockquote cite="mid22369.1153492213@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">On Fri, Jul 21,2006 at 01:42:26PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">I would prefer to dropthe PG_ prefixes on PG_TRACE and pg_trace.h. We know which software we're dealing with. </pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre wrap=""> </pre><blockquote type="cite"><prewrap="">I don't know. "trace" is a fairly generic word, how do you know that none of the dozen other libraries we include don't already have a "trace.h" or a TRACE() macro? On any of our supported platforms? </pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""> I concur with Martijn. We've already regretted using ERROR as a macro name, let's not make the same mistake with TRACE. PG_TRACE is good, and so is pg_trace.h. (But invoking it as utils/trace.h would be ok.) </pre></blockquote> How about the obvious DTRACE( .... ) or some similar variant?<br /><br /> -- Korry<br /><br />
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: