Hi,
Le 21 juil. 09 à 07:57, Itagaki Takahiro a écrit :
Oops, I must fix it. I didn't test well the default stack depth (10).
I'd better not have limitation of condition stack.
I'm glad to hear it's possible to implement without arbitrary limits :)
BTW, I hope I have enough feedbacks from
On Tuesday 21 July 2009 09:09:54 Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
* Is it ok we have two versions of profiling? (this and dtrace
probes)
Can't comment on this, never used dtrace before, don't have a version
of it on my production systems.
Well, the objection remains: We already have dtrace
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
Hi,
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
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
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lanet...@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
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
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
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
WARNING: condition stack overflow: 10
So I'm going to change patch state to Returned with Feedback as I
guess we'll need to talk about the issue and find a way to solve it,
and I don't think this state prevent from getting back to the patch
Hi,
Le 19 juil. 09 à 06:30, Robert Haas a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What do you want to use then ... Waiting on Author?
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
Oh and I see that Returned with feedback did set a Close Date, so
it's not what I
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Dimitri Fontainedfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Oh and I see that Returned with feedback did set a Close Date, so it's
not what I intended anyway. I've changed the status to Waiting on Author
and if we have no news before the end of current commit fest, I'll then
Hi,
Le 14 juil. 09 à 11:47, Itagaki Takahiro a écrit :
I updated Sampling profiler patch to be applied to HEAD cleanly.
Which I confirm, as I just spent some time to reviewing the patch (it
was left unassigned in the commit fest). Reviewing code didn't strike
anything so obvious that I'd
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Dimitri Fontainedfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
So I'm going to change patch state to Returned with Feedback as I guess
we'll need to talk about the issue and find a way to solve it, and I don't
think this state prevent from getting back to the patch in this same
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Dimitri Fontainedfonta...@hi-media.com
wrote:
So I'm going to change patch state to Returned with Feedback as I guess
we'll need to talk about the issue and find a way to solve it, and I don't
think this state prevent
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Dimitri Fontainedfonta...@hi-media.com
wrote:
So I'm going to change patch state to Returned with Feedback as I guess
we'll need to talk about the issue and find a way to solve it, and I
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Dimitri Fontainedfonta...@hi-media.com
wrote:
So I'm going to change patch state to Returned with Feedback as I guess
we'll need to talk about the
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Jaime
Casanovajcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Dimitri Fontainedfonta...@hi-media.com
wrote:
So I'm going to change patch state to Returned with
Hi!
Thanks for your answer. Here is my general reasoning: I was thinking
about a way to use the profiler to determine the resource profile even
of (maybe even short time) business transactions. I would like to leave
the technical focus (high CPU usage, high I/O rate, too many disk sorts,
...)
I updated Sampling profiler patch to be applied to HEAD cleanly.
Basic concept of the patch is same as DTrace probes:
Call pgstat_push_condition(condition) before a operation and call
pgstat_pop_condition() at the end of the operation. Those functions
should be light-weight because they only
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Itagaki
Takahiroitagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
I updated Sampling profiler patch to be applied to HEAD cleanly.
shouldn't pg_stat_reset() reset these values?
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de
Hi!
Itagaki Takahiro writes:
I updated Sampling profiler patch to be applied to HEAD cleanly.
[...]
Comments welcome.
I believe the profiler could give us a better understanding of where
different parts of the user visible response time originate from. The
problem with DTrace in my
Stefan Moeding pg...@moeding.net wrote:
Have you thought about keeping the counters for each backend isolated?
I think in the end it would be beneficial to be able to break down the
response time for a critical business transaction in isolation instead
of having all backends in one figure.
20 matches
Mail list logo
