From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager |
Date: | 2009-12-11 18:56:16 |
Message-ID: | 21712.1260557776@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> As far as I am concerned that is way too much, particularly
> considering that your test case isn't designed to be particularly
> memory-allocation intensive, and if it is up to me I will reject this.
> Even a quarter-percent slowdown for a feature that will be used only
> by a small fraction of users only a small fraction of time time seems
> totally unacceptable to me.
It seems to me that anyone who really needs this can instrument the
alloc functions anyway --- isn't one of the features of DTrace supposed
to be that you can monitor calls to a particular function without any
prearranged code support? Or is that one of the things like "zero
overhead" that turns out to be more marketing-speak than reality?
Anyway I concur with Robert's opinion that the use-case is far too small
to justify incurring a measurable overhead for everybody. There might
be some small argument for putting these in under an extra #ifdef, but
they wouldn't get into any regular production build.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-12-11 19:11:24 | Re: Adding support for SE-Linux security |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-12-11 18:52:44 | Re: Adding support for SE-Linux security |