How to find out what's going on

Per Hedeland hedeland@REDACTED
Wed Jan 4 12:18:03 CET 2006

Joel Reymont <joelr1@REDACTED> wrote:
>I'm sure that I did not make any copy/paste mistakes. Indeed, the  
>lines are printed in reverse order but could it be that disk_log does  
>not guarantee the order? I did not look at the disk_log code but it  
>seems more likely that the terms were logged in reverse order.

It would be a really crappy logger if the order of calls from a single
process wasn't preserved all the way down to the log entries. And as you
pointed out elsewhere, the time was grabbed in the trace() function, and
it was obviously later in the second logged line, since that lateness is
what you're asking about...

>The printout is from opening the disk log and printing all entries  
>where pid is the one that I'm looking for.

And resulting in *only* those two lines, nothing before and/or after?
I.e. it's not just that you're off-by-one when pairing up log entries?
And of course, both pids and logs may wrap... (not likely that your pids
wrapped though I guess).

--Per Hedeland

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list