| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 02:19:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqig1RrFYKt31Z1fKEnDJe6a-pw-NkuesXkj1Xwcm-52g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 13:26, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > 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.
I'm starting to lean more towards that myself. I had mostly just been
motivated to finding a way to prevent it from existing in a broken
state again.
HASH_STATISTICS I can imagine is more useful as that information isn't
otherwise recorded anywhere.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-08-18 02:36:48 | Re: analyze-in-stages post upgrade questions |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2025-08-18 02:08:19 | Re: Raw parse tree is not dumped to log |