What about a similar thing to allow us to tag threads as well? the information could be included when spewing out debug information and may be useful.
Just a thought. david ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 5:01 PM Subject: APR_POOL_DEBUG and apr_pool_tag() > apr_pool_tag() would seem to be very cheap in terms of space and > time as well as potentially useful for debugging problems in > production builds. > > Does it really need to be noop-ed if APR_POOL_DEBUG isn't defined? > I'd like to see it always and I'd like to tweak Apache to use it in > more places. > > I see that today apr_pool_tag() is almost the only thing controlled > via APR_POOL_DEBUG but I would imagine that folks will implement more > costly debug tools in the figure which you'd get with APR_POOL_DEBUG. > > Thoughts? > > (just fretting about the latest SIGHUP segfault with worker; pretty > likely that it is a pool misuse; it'd be nice to walk through the > coredump seeing "process", "pconf", "transaction", etc. yeah I can > define APR_POOL_DEBUG but what happens when APR_POOL_DEBUG gets too > expensive to use on a normal basis?) > -- > Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site: > http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ > Born in Roswell... married an alien... >
