Re: [PATCH] : Count retries and redispatches also for servers + extend logs + %d->%u cleanup

Hi Krzysztof,

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >From 9a41d4f9155826cc9034af5adec13e3029b1dc2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Krzysztof Piotr Oledzki <ole#ans.pl>
> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:43:15 +0100
> Subject: [MINOR]: Count retries and redispatches also for servers + extend logs + %d->%u cleanup
>
> This patch extends a little previously added functionality to also
> count retries and redispatches for servers. Now it is possible to know
> which server causes redispatches as it is not alwas the same that takes
> most retries.

Ah OK I see, previously only the backend would account for redispatches. That's a good idea.

> I also extended log to add how many retries are still possible and fixed

Don't you think it would be more useful to count the number of retries performed before getting the connection processed ? I think that putting the remaining retries in the logs does not bring much information as soon as you update your configuration. So most probably, you should log (be->retries - sv->conn_retries).

Also, is it really useful in your situation to see the number of retries ? I'm not against merging the patch, I'm just wondering if that uncovers a lot of problems or just one in while.

> a little the documentation (sorry, english only) about logs, as current
> version uses totally different format. BTW: examples are still outdated,
> maybe next time...

Thanks for the doc, I really appreciate it (I mean, really). No problem for the french doc, I think it will eventually die. The english doc will be kept there as long as the new one is not completed. If we can move large chunks of useful information from the old one to the new one, it will be cool. But I'm not sure it would really be doable.

> Finally, I changed %d -> %u for retries/redispatches as those variables
> are declared as unsigned. Similar cleanup also applies to other variables,
> will send additional patch if that is OK?

I remember that a long time ago I stopped using one of the printf formats which was not found on all unixes, and I think it was %u, but I'm not sure, maybe I'm confusing with %llu and relatives. At least from the man pages, %u is OK on solaris and openbsd. Should be fine anywhere else. If so, yes you can update the fields you identify.

Thanks,
Willy Received on 2007/12/03 20:37