| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| 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 21:29:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20190424212908.GA5263@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Apr-24, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I suspect that the reason that this hasn't happened already is because
> it leaves trace_sort/TRACE_SORT in the slightly awkward position of no
> longer quite meeting the traditional definition of a "developer
> option".
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.
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.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-04-24 21:31:36 | Re: TRACE_SORT defined by default |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-04-24 21:23:31 | Re: TRACE_SORT defined by default |