On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 08:58:17AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Actually it would work if both are mixed: the code would aggregate a sample.
> However it does not look very useful to do that, so it is arbitrary
> forbidden. Not sure whether this is that useful to prevent this use case.
Okay, noted.
> Attached v4 improves comments and moves tx as an assert.
Thanks. I have not tested in details but that looks rather sane to me
at quick glance. I'll look at that more tomorrow.
> + * The function behaviors changes depending on sample_rate (a fraction of
> + * transaction is reported) and agg_interval (transactions are aggregated
> + * over the interval and reported once).
The first part of this sentence has an incorrect grammar.
--
Michael