Re: Is WAL_DEBUG related code still relevant today?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is WAL_DEBUG related code still relevant today?
Date: 2023-12-08 04:45:18
Message-ID: ZXKfXjHhikO8yeIx@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 05:29:55PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> The comment atop trace_recovery [1] function says it should go away
> eventually and seems to have served the purpose when the recovery
> related code was introduced in PG 9.0.
>
> FWIW, the attached patch is what I've left with after removing
> trace_recovery_messages related code, 9 files changed, 19
> insertions(+), 97 deletions(-).

Looks acceptable to me. Does somebody object to this removal?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2023-12-08 04:51:15 Re: micro-optimizing json.c
Previous Message Andrei Lepikhov 2023-12-08 04:37:27 Re: Assert failure on 'list_member_ptr(rel->joininfo, restrictinfo)'