On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> Well, the objection remains: We already have dtrace support, and dtrace or
>> dtrace-like systems are spreading to many operating systems, so one wonders
>> whether it is useful to clutter the code with another probing system instead
>> of putting some resources, say, into getting systemtap up to speed.
>
> For the record, I think this patch is a waste of manpower and we should
> rely on dtrace/systemtap. However, if we are going to make our own
> homegrown substitute for those facilities, a minimum requirement should
> be that it uses the dtrace macros already put into the sources, rather
> than expecting that it gets to clutter the code some more with its own
> set of tracing markers.
dtrace/systemtap doesn't work on every OS someone might care about,
but I definitely agree that we should try to reuse the same tracing
markers.
...Robert
