On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:27:28AM -0700, Mark Hazen wrote:
> Mark Hazen wrote:
> >> I wish this were true, but no one will ever get IO::Scalar to catch DBI's
> >> STDERR output.
>
> >If so, it's only because STDERR under mod_perl is already tied. DBI is
> >not an external process.
>
> >> Throwing all this stuff into a file is already something DBI
> >> can do, but as I already said, opening several hundred files per minute
> will
> >> overwhelm my system.
>
> >I don't think it does that. It should open one file per process that
> >has tracing turned on and keep writing to it. I already suggested that
> >you can just turn it on for a single process. That would mean one file
> >being written to by one process, which is very unlikely to overwhelm any
> >system.
>
> That's your opinion. In my opinion, a bunch of disk IO and file seeks are a
> waste of resources. The bigger issue here is that it is better to store in
> memory, and it saddens me that it doesn't seem possible.
This is a design flaw of DBI then. You might get more results if you
post on the DBI users list. We got part of the way there by
redefining the trace_msg function, the only part that remains is
gathering the output of the lower-level DBD calls, that might involve
modifying some XS code, (or it might not)..
Propose a 'callback' interface on dbi-users, you'll probably get a
warm reception.
--
Paul Lindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] ||||| | | | | | | | | |
mod_perl Developer's Cookbook http://www.modperlcookbook.org/
Human Rights Declaration http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm
