On 09/24/2011 01:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 24 September 2011 16:41, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Frankly, with the tool in its current state I'd rather not run it at
all, ever. The value per man-hour expended is too low. The mess it
made out of the xlog-related includes this time around makes me question
whether it's even a net benefit, regardless of whether it can be
guaranteed not to break things. Fundamentally, there's a large
component of design judgment/taste in the question of which header files
should include which others, but this tool does not have any taste.
I agree. If this worked well in a semi-automated fashion, there'd be
some other open source tool already available for us to use. As far as
I know, there isn't. As we work around pgrminclude's bugs, its
benefits become increasingly small and hard to quantify.
If we're not going to use it, it should be removed from the tree.
Yeah, I've always been dubious about the actual benefit. At best this
can be seen as identifying some candidates for pruning, but as an
automated tool I'm inclined to write it off as a failed experiment.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: