Re: Generic Monitoring Framework Proposal
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Generic Monitoring Framework Proposal |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 21399.1150749626@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Generic Monitoring Framework Proposal (Robert Lor <Robert.Lor@Sun.COM>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Generic Monitoring Framework Proposal
Re: Generic Monitoring Framework Proposal |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Lor <Robert.Lor@Sun.COM> writes:
> The main goal for this Generic Monitoring Framework is to provide a
> common interface for adding instrumentation points or probes to
> Postgres so its behavior can be easily observed by developers and
> administrators even in production systems.
What is the overhead of a "probe" when you're not using it? The answer
had better not include the phrase "kernel call", or this is unlikely to
pass muster...
> For DTrace, probes can be enabled using a D script. When the probes are not enabled, there is absolutely no
performancehit whatsoever.
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested
in.
What are the criteria going to be for where to put probe calls? If it
has to be hard-wired into the source code, I foresee a lot of contention
about which probes are worth their overhead, because we'll need
one-size-fits-all answers.
> arg1..arg5 = Any args to pass to the probe such as txn id, lock id, etc
Where is the data type of a probe argument defined?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: