Re: Valgrind Memcheck support

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Valgrind Memcheck support
Date: 2013-08-27 14:14:27
Message-ID: 20130827141427.GF24807@alap2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Noah,

On 2013-06-09 17:25:59 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> *** a/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c
> --- b/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c
> ***************
> *** 69,74 ****
> --- 69,75 ----
> #include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
> #include "tcop/utility.h"
> #include "utils/lsyscache.h"
> + #include "utils/memdebug.h"
> #include "utils/memutils.h"
> #include "utils/ps_status.h"
> #include "utils/snapmgr.h"
> ***************
> *** 846,851 **** exec_simple_query(const char *query_string)
> --- 847,856 ----
>
> TRACE_POSTGRESQL_QUERY_START(query_string);
>
> + #ifdef USE_VALGRIND
> + VALGRIND_PRINTF("statement: %s\n", query_string);
> + #endif
> +

Is there a special reason for adding more logging here? I find this
makes the instrumentation much less useful since reports easily get
burried in those traces. What's the advantage of doing this instead of
log_statement=...? Especially as that location afaics won't help for the
extended protocol?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Atri Sharma 2013-08-27 14:36:21 Re: Valgrind Memcheck support
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-08-27 14:09:42 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY