Re: Review: DTrace probes (merged version)

From: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, jesus(at)omniti(dot)com
Subject: Re: Review: DTrace probes (merged version)
Date: 2008-07-04 17:26:52
Message-ID: 486E5D5C.4060601@sun.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane napsal(a):
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> Autovacuum_start probe is alone. I propose following probes for completeness:
>>>
>>> proc-autovacuum-start
>>> proc-autovacuum-stop
>>> proc-bgwriter-start
>>> proc-bgwriter-stop
>
>> Separate proc-autovacuum-worker-start and proc-autovacuum-launcher-start,
>> perhaps. Not that I see any usefulness in tracking autovacuum launcher
>> start and stop, but then if we're tracking bgwriter start and stop then
>> it makes the same sense.
>
> I see no value in cluttering the system with useless probes. The worker
> start/stop are the only ones here with any conceivable application IMHO.

As I answered to Alvaro. I needed to catch start of backend several times to
track call flow or attach debugger. It is possible to use some other dtrace
magic for that, but it is not easy and there is not way how to determine what
kind of process it is. For example how to measure how many writes performs
bgwriter?

Zdenek

--
Zdenek Kotala Sun Microsystems
Prague, Czech Republic http://sun.com/postgresql

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-07-04 17:30:35 Re: Review: DTrace probes (merged version)
Previous Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-07-04 17:19:40 Re: Review: DTrace probes (merged version)