| From: | Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Generic Monitoring Framework Proposal |
| Date: | 2006-06-20 17:27:56 |
| Message-ID: | 4498301C.3000707@sun.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
>This needs to work on Linux and Windows, minimum, also.
>
>
The proposed solution will work on Linux & Windows if they similar
facility that the macros can map to. Otherwise, the macros stay as
no-ops and will not affect those platforms at all.
>It's obviously impossible to move a production system to a different OS
>just to use a cool tracing tool. So the architecture must intelligently
>handle the needs of multiple OS - even if the underlying facilities on
>them do not yet provide what we'd like. So I'm OK with Solaris being the
>best, just as long as its not the only one that benefits.
>
>
>
The way it's proposed now, any OS can use the same interfaces and map to
their underlying facilities. Does it look reasonable?
Regards,
Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-06-20 17:35:50 | Re: Slightly bogus regression test for contrib/dblink |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-20 17:23:44 | Re: Slightly bogus regression test for contrib/dblink |