| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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 01:17:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvoY8ZiH+eyOQ0bpuUPv4rx4iVimREJsr7-7-VTyNPzJGQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 13:10, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 12:56:02PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > -#ifdef HASH_DEBUG
> > +#if defined(HASH_DEBUG) || defined(USE_ASSERT_CHECKING)
> >
> > The HASH_DEBUG does not add any extra fields, so the overhead only
> > amounts to the elog(DEBUG4) line. HASH_STATISTICS adds extra fields
> > and counter incrementing, so I don't propose the same treatment for
> > that.
>
> 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.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-08-18 01:26:22 | Re: Compilation issues for HASH_STATISTICS and HASH_DEBUG options |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-08-18 01:10:40 | Re: Compilation issues for HASH_STATISTICS and HASH_DEBUG options |