From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Reduce noise from tsort |
Date: | 2006-04-15 17:57:20 |
Message-ID: | 20060415175720.GG22736@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:12:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > Tiny patch to Makefile.shlib to reduce noise created by tsearch. All it
> > does is remove duplicates. The behaviour itself is not changed.
>
> What cases exactly does that fix ... and are you sure it doesn't break
> anything?
Oh, right. Like you say, when creating libpq.a it spits out several
screenfuls of (completely useless) info and it's the same thing over
and over again. With the sort it only emits each loop once, which is
less than one screen. I don't see how it could break anything because
the output is semantically equivalent to the input.
> Personally I've been wondering for some time why we use lorder/tsort
> at all. Are there any platforms we support where this is still needed?
> (Given the existence of circular references within libpq.a, one would
> think that tsort wouldn't help such a platform anyway.)
I've never worked with a system that cared about the order within
libraries so I've never really experienced the problem. But I leave it
in because I figure it must fix something for someone somewhere...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-15 17:57:43 | Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-15 17:56:32 | Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file |