Re: Removing the TRACE_SORT macro

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Removing the TRACE_SORT macro
Date: 2016-04-11 21:35:28
Message-ID: CANP8+jK8hh9EAHnLw+sQA4=f3oGzWzpDDjQAvWmW17nh9vHGOQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11 April 2016 at 21:43, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:

> Currently, debug instrumentation for sorting is only available if the
> TRACE_SORT macro was defined when PostgreSQL was compiled. It is
> defined by default, and so in practice it's always available; there is
> really no upside to disabling it. "18.17. Developer Options" notes
> this restriction for trace_sort, which is the only such restriction.
>
> The number of TRACE_SORT elog() logging callers has grown
> significantly in the past couple of releases. The associated "#ifdef
> TRACE_SORT" crud has also grown.
>
> I propose that we completely remove the TRACE_SORT macro, and all the
> associated crud. Just having that as an option suggests that there is
> some possible upside to disabling trace_sort, which is clearly not
> true. I will write a patch doing this if there are no objections. I
> think this is justifiable as clean-up for 9.6.
>

Yeh, sort has changed enough now that fixes weren't going to backpatch
cleanly, so its a good time to do cleanup.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2016-04-11 21:36:24 Re: Remove unused function from walsender.c
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2016-04-11 20:53:56 Re: Choosing parallel_degree