[erlang-questions] Erlang tracing

Fred Hebert <>
Mon Sep 21 17:58:14 CEST 2015


On 09/21, Lukas Larsson wrote:
>I'm pretty sure that many of you have much more experience with using
>Erlang tracing while developing and in production than I do, which is we
>would love to have your input as to what you would like to change about
>tracing.
>
>To set the scope of the discussion, when I say tracing I include; erlang
>tracing, dtrace/systemtap, trace outputs (stdout/file/IP), filtering
>through match specs, sequence tracing, tool integration (dbg, fprof,
>redbug, recon to mention some) and probably more.
>

I love the idea of multiple tracers.

One thing I think would be nifty is to be able to trace the output of a 
function, but only if it matches a given pattern, rather than only being 
able to do it with the function arguments.

Otherwise, just generally decreasing the impact of Erlang tracing on a 
prod system would be good.

In my "let's handwave away all complexity", a thing I'd love to be able 
to do is know where a function call comes from. Too often I can trace 
the function call that fails or goes bad, but I have no manageable way 
to trace or extract which function call sits above it in the call stack 
(even if LCO makes it less useful).


Regards,
Fred.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list