On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 13:26, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: > > I wondered about that and thought that there might be an above zero > > chance that someone would want HASH_DEBUG without USE_ASSERT_CHECKING. > > I don't really know if that person exists. It certainly isn't me. > > 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. HASH_STATISTICS I can imagine is more useful as that information isn't otherwise recorded anywhere. David
