Re: libpq debug log

From: Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io>
To: iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: libpq debug log
Date: 2018-11-12 22:46:19
Message-ID: CABAq_6HETsCjv5vf_HXKM+A9smW8P-GVH0iuZ-1Y8RiwQ8eZ+w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:39 AM Iwata, Aya <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> I create a first libpq trace log patch.

Couple additional thoughts from a read-through of the patch:

- PQtrace() and the new trace-logging machinery overlap in some places
but not others -- and if both are set, PQtrace() will take precedence.
It seems like the two should not be separate.
- It isn't immediately clear to me how the new information in the logs
is intended to be used in concert with the old information. Maybe this
goes back to the comments by Tom and Robert higher in the thread --
that an overhaul of the PQtrace system is due. This patch as presented
would make things a little worse before they got better, I think.

That said, I think the overall idea -- application performance
information that can be enabled via the environment, without requiring
debugging privileges on a machine or the need to manually correlate
traces made by other applications -- is a good one, and something I
would use.

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2018-11-12 22:51:35 Re: [HACKERS] Decimal64 and Decimal128
Previous Message David Rowley 2018-11-12 22:01:33 Re: [HACKERS] Decimal64 and Decimal128