| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager |
| Date: | 2009-11-13 21:20:01 |
| Message-ID: | 9915.1258147201@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 16:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is a bad idea and I want to reject it outright. No ordinary user
>> is really going to care about those details, and palloc is a
>> sufficiently hot hot-spot that even the allegedly negligible overhead
>> of an inactive dtrace probe is going to cost us.
> No ordinary user is going to use dtrace at all.
Right, but *those probes are going to cost him performance anyway*
if he's using a dtrace-enabled build. Probes associated with I/O
calls might be negligible, probes in palloc are not going to be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emilio Platzer | 2009-11-13 21:20:11 | I need to code a float with magnitude (ie unit of measure) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-11-13 21:19:54 | Re: next CommitFest |