"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> The TRACE is in the wrong place no? I thought it was going to be after >>> the stat() operation so it could pass the file size.
> We had that discussion already. If you only pass it after the stat() > then you cannot use DTrace, except when you already get a message in the > log and therefore don't need DTrace. We may have had the discussion, but apparently you didn't follow it :-(. The point of the proposal was that if you wanted to DTrace temp files you would set log_temp_files to some large value, thus causing the stat() call to occur but no log message to come out. This is surely a lot more efficient than having to have DTrace open the file for itself --- and if you don't care about micro-efficiency, what's wrong with using the logging option? > You can't say we don't have many probes so we won't add one. There never > will be many if we do that - its a circular argument. I think the real criterion has to be "is this probe useful to developers?". I'm entirely uninterested in adding probes that are targeted towards DBAs, as this one would have been --- if we think there's a problem that a DBA would have, we need to offer a more portable solution than that. Which we did, in the form of a logging option, which makes the DTrace probe pretty useless anyway. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster