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 18:55:01 |
Message-ID: | 6070.1204052101@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:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm unconvinced that there will be any probes that are common to all
>> databases. I'd skip this part...
>>
> Any reason why we can't consider probes like transaction-start,
> transaction-commit, or transaction-abort as common probes that can also
> be used in other (maybe no all) databases?
I'm unimpressed; it's not at all clear that you'd be measuring quite the
same thing in, say, mysql as in postgres.
Possibly I have a different view of the uses of dtrace than you do, but
most of the events I'd be interested in probing are probably pretty
Postgres-specific. I think distinguishing half a dozen of them on the
assumption that there should be (exact) matches to that probe point in
most databases is misleading and a source of useless extra notation.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-26 18:58:25 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2008-02-26 18:54:02 | Re: code cleanup of timestamp code |