| 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 05:06:19 |
| Message-ID: | aKK0y03DqwAY7N6k@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 02:19:06PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 13:26, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
+1.
> HASH_STATISTICS I can imagine is more useful as that information isn't
> otherwise recorded anywhere.
By the way, once we have reached a conclusion here, I'll go update one
of my animals to use what's remaining of the flags, so as this is
captured in the future.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2025-08-18 05:18:25 | Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-08-18 05:05:57 | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |