| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Compilation issues for HASH_STATISTICS and HASH_DEBUG options |
| Date: | 2025-08-18 01:26:22 |
| Message-ID: | 240328.1755480382@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 13:10, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> If we do that, I guess that we could just remove HASH_DEBUG, keeping
>> only HASH_STATISTICS.
> I wondered about that and thought that there might be an above zero
> chance that someone would want HASH_DEBUG without USE_ASSERT_CHECKING.
> I don't really know if that person exists. It certainly isn't me.
Yeah, it's really quite unclear what the existing HASH_DEBUG printout
is good for. At least in our usage, it doesn't tell you anything
you can't discover from static code analysis. I'm +1 for just
dropping it altogether.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-08-18 02:01:47 | Re: Memory leak of SMgrRelation object on standby |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-08-18 01:17:29 | Re: Compilation issues for HASH_STATISTICS and HASH_DEBUG options |