Re: Proposed changes to DTrace probe implementation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposed changes to DTrace probe implementation
Date: 2008-02-26 16:42:45
Message-ID: 3821.1204044165@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>> * This is unrelated to making DTrace work on Leopard, but I'd like to
>> propose that we split the probes into generic database and Postgres
>> specific providers, called "database" and "postgresql" respectively.
>> Other databases will be adding DTrace probes as well, and we want to
>> use "database" as the provider for probes that are common to all
>> databases.

I'm unconvinced that there will be any probes that are common to all
databases. I'd skip this part...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-02-26 16:59:09 Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-02-26 16:19:54 Re: pgsql: Don't build the win32 support files in the all target, only in