Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: DTrace probe patch for OS X Leopard

From: Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: DTrace probe patch for OS X Leopard
Date: 2008-02-29 14:17:00
Message-ID: 47C813DC.3020001@sun.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Another thing that is concerning me about this new approach is the way the 
> probes are named.  For example, we'd now have a call
>
> POSTGRESQL_LWLOCK_ACQUIRE()
>
> in the code.  This does not say we are *tracing* lock aquisition, but it looks 
> like a macro that actually acquires a lock.
>   
Definitely a valid concern.
> I understand that these probe names follow some global naming scheme.  Is it 
> hard to change that?  I'd feel more comfortable with, say, 
> (D)TRACE_POSTGRESQL_LWLOCK_ACQUIRE().
>   
Because the macro is auto generated and follows certain naming 
conventions, prepending TRACE_ will not work. If you did that, the probe 
name will be called "postgresql-lwlock-aquire" and the provider will be 
"trace" which is not what we want.

To avoid the confusion, how about just adding a simple comment like /* 
DTrace probe or  Trace point or something similar */  before all 
occurrences of the macro calls?

Regards,
-Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-02-29 14:34:14
Subject: remove TCL_ARRAYS
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-02-29 14:10:48
Subject: Re: DTrace probe patch for OS X Leopard

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group