| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 01:10:40 |
| Message-ID: | aKJ9kBZi6gFGvzS5@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 12:56:02PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> One last thing, in order to inform people of breakages sooner than a
> post-commit report from the buildfarm, I wondered is if we should do:
>
> -#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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2025-08-18 01:17:29 | Re: Compilation issues for HASH_STATISTICS and HASH_DEBUG options |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-08-18 00:56:02 | Re: Compilation issues for HASH_STATISTICS and HASH_DEBUG options |