On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes: >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hrm, this doesn't look right at all. > >> Aargh. I thought I had checked this pretty carefully before >> committing that last patch. > > No, sorry, my mistake: I assumed your first commit hadn't touched the > probes at all, which I now see wasn't true. It does appear to be > consistent now.
OK, good. :-) >> buffer-flush-start and buffer-flush-done are documented as only >> getting called for shared buffers, so there is no point in passing a >> backend ID that will always be -1. buffer-write-dirty-start and >> buffer-write-dirty-done are not documented as applying only to shared >> buffers, but I believe it to be the case: they are called from >> BufferAlloc, which appears to be shared-buffers-only code. > > I wonder though whether we should take the opportunity to generalize the > probe definitions so that they would work for local buffers. But maybe > nobody really cares. Well, *I* don't care. But I also don't mind it if someone who *does* care writes a patch. As you can tell, I don't normally enable dtrace functionality in my builds. :-( Or to put it another way, I see no particularly compelling reason why we need to do this right now, but neither do I object to it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
