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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
