On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Hrm, this doesn't look right at all.
>
>> Aargh. I thought I had checked this pretty carefully before
>> committing that last patch.
>
> No, sorry, my mistake: I assumed your first commit hadn't touched the
> probes at all, which I now see wasn't true. It does appear to be
> consistent now.
OK, good. :-)
>> buffer-flush-start and buffer-flush-done are documented as only
>> getting called for shared buffers, so there is no point in passing a
>> backend ID that will always be -1. buffer-write-dirty-start and
>> buffer-write-dirty-done are not documented as applying only to shared
>> buffers, but I believe it to be the case: they are called from
>> BufferAlloc, which appears to be shared-buffers-only code.
>
> I wonder though whether we should take the opportunity to generalize the
> probe definitions so that they would work for local buffers. But maybe
> nobody really cares.
Well, *I* don't care. But I also don't mind it if someone who *does*
care writes a patch. As you can tell, I don't normally enable dtrace
functionality in my builds. :-(
Or to put it another way, I see no particularly compelling reason why
we need to do this right now, but neither do I object to it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
