| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: -DDISABLE_ENABLE_ASSERT |
| Date: | 2014-05-23 13:59:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20140523135952.GI31579@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-23 09:56:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> That means you're for a (differently named) disable macro? Or is it not
> >> recent enough that you don't care?
>
> > I'm leaning toward thinking we should just rip it out. The fact that
> > 3 out of the 4 people commenting on this thread have used it at some
> > point provides some evidence that it has more than no value - but on
> > the other hand, there's a cost to keeping it around.
>
> Yeah. For the record, I've used it too (don't recall what for exactly).
> But I don't think it's worth adding yet another layer of complication for.
Cool. Seems like we have an agreement then.
The next question is whether to wait till after the branching with this?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-23 14:01:37 | Re: -DDISABLE_ENABLE_ASSERT |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-23 13:56:03 | Re: -DDISABLE_ENABLE_ASSERT |