Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch to log usage of temporary files

Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Also, I dunno much about DTrace, but I had the idea that you can't
> > > simply throw a PG_TRACE macro into the source and think you are done
> > > --- isn't there a file of probe declarations to add to? Not to mention
> > > the documentation of what probes exist.
> >
> > I didn't like the macro in that area anyway. It seems too adhock to
> > just throw it in when we have so few places monitored now. Removed.
>
> err... why are we removing it? The patch should have included an
> addition to the probes.d file also, but that should be fixed, not
> removed. Don't we normally reject incomplete patches?
>
> 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.

The trace probe was incorrect and kind of at an odd place. I don't
think we want to go down the road of throwing trace in everwhere, do we?
I would like to see a more systematic approach to it.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +