[erlang-questions] Erlang tracing

[Fred Hebert]

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.