Robert Lor wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
That rings a bell. Can we get a more precise designation on what
version of DTrace we support? And where can one get that required
update?
Peter,
The problem with static function was fixed recently and is now available
in Solaris
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Do we need to add detection logic to catch buggy versions?
Instead of adding extra logic, I think it's sufficient with
documentation since the issue will soon be fixed in the next Solaris update.
Regards,
-Robert
---(end of
Robert Lor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Do we need to add detection logic to catch buggy versions?
Instead of adding extra logic, I think it's sufficient with
documentation since the issue will soon be fixed in the next Solaris update.
I agree ... it's not like this is a
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
That rings a bell. Can we get a more precise designation on what
version of DTrace we support? And where can one get that required
update?
Peter,
The problem with static function was fixed recently and is now available
in Solaris Express (the development
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does it not like static functions?
I seem to recall Robert mentioning that they'd only recently fixed
DTrace to cope with probes in static functions. Maybe you need to
get an update?
That rings a bell. Can we get a more precise
/usr/sbin/dtrace -G -s utils/probes.d access/SUBSYS.o bootstrap/SUBSYS.o
catalog/SUBSYS.o parser/SUBSYS.o commands/SUBSYS.o executor/SUBSYS.o
lib/SUBSYS.o libpq/SUBSYS.o main/SUBSYS.o nodes/SUBSYS.o optimizer/SUBSYS.o
port/SUBSYS.o postmaster/SUBSYS.o regex/SUBSYS.o rewrite/SUBSYS.o
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does it not like static functions?
I seem to recall Robert mentioning that they'd only recently fixed
DTrace to cope with probes in static functions. Maybe you need to
get an update?
regards, tom lane
