On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> Well, the objection remains: We already have dtrace support, and dtrace or >> dtrace-like systems are spreading to many operating systems, so one wonders >> whether it is useful to clutter the code with another probing system instead >> of putting some resources, say, into getting systemtap up to speed. > > For the record, I think this patch is a waste of manpower and we should > rely on dtrace/systemtap. However, if we are going to make our own > homegrown substitute for those facilities, a minimum requirement should > be that it uses the dtrace macros already put into the sources, rather > than expecting that it gets to clutter the code some more with its own > set of tracing markers.
dtrace/systemtap doesn't work on every OS someone might care about, but I definitely agree that we should try to reuse the same tracing markers. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
