| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: TRACE_SORT defined by default |
| Date: | 2019-04-24 21:31:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmNHWH4g-sA-x1P+OD4cM6DkmaSTYFvjXWPbpbKFkQnyQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:29 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> This is a really strange argument. You're saying that somebody thought
> about it: "Hmm, well, I can remove this preprocessor symbol but then
> trace_sort would no longer resemble a developer option. So I'm going to
> leave the symbol alone". I don't think that's what happened. It seems
> more likely to me that nobody has gone to the trouble of deciding that
> the symbol is worth removing, let alone actually doing it.
It doesn't seem very important now.
> If the instrumentation is good, and you seem to be saying that it is, I
> think we should just remove the symbol and be done with it.
Sounds like a plan. Do you want to take care of it, Joe?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-24 22:04:41 | Re: TRACE_SORT defined by default |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-04-24 21:29:08 | Re: TRACE_SORT defined by default |