"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 16:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is a bad idea and I want to reject it outright. No ordinary user
>> is really going to care about those details, and palloc is a
>> sufficiently hot hot-spot that even the allegedly negligible overhead
>> of an inactive dtrace probe is going to cost us.
> No ordinary user is going to use dtrace at all.
Right, but *those probes are going to cost him performance anyway*
if he's using a dtrace-enabled build. Probes associated with I/O
calls might be negligible, probes in palloc are not going to be.
regards, tom lane
