Re: Valgrind Memcheck support

Sent from my iPad

On 27-Aug-2013, at 19:44, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi Noah,
>
> On 2013-06-09 17:25:59 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> *** a/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c
>> --- b/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c
>> ***************
>> *** 69,74 ****
>> --- 69,75 ----
>> #include "tcop/tcopprot.h"
>> #include "tcop/utility.h"
>> #include "utils/lsyscache.h"
>> + #include "utils/memdebug.h"
>> #include "utils/memutils.h"
>> #include "utils/ps_status.h"
>> #include "utils/snapmgr.h"
>> ***************
>> *** 846,851 **** exec_simple_query(const char *query_string)
>> --- 847,856 ----
>>
>> TRACE_POSTGRESQL_QUERY_START(query_string);
>>
>> + #ifdef USE_VALGRIND
>> + VALGRIND_PRINTF("statement: %s\n", query_string);
>> + #endif
>> +
>
> Is there a special reason for adding more logging here? I find this
> makes the instrumentation much less useful since reports easily get
> burried in those traces. What's the advantage of doing this instead of
> log_statement=...? Especially as that location afaics won't help for the
> extended protocol?
>
>

+1. I also feel that extra traces may tend to confuse up the actual hot spot. Extra debugging can be happily be done with higher log levels.

Regards,

Atri