Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I would just fix it in head.
> That just seems weird. Either it's cheap enough not to matter (in
> which case there's no reason to revert that change at all) or it's
> expensive enough to matter (in which case presuma
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> >> The funny thing is that I've been think
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
> >> wrote:
> >> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> >> The funny thing is that I've been thinking all of these months
> >> >> about how convenient it is tha
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
>> wrote:
>> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> The funny thing is that I've been thinking all of these months
>> >> about how convenient it is that we defined WAL_DEBUG in debug
>
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> The funny thing is that I've been thinking all of these months
> >> about how convenient it is that we defined WAL_DEBUG in debug
> >> builds
> >
> > IMO, --enable-debug should not do anything
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> The funny thing is that I've been thinking all of these months
>> about how convenient it is that we defined WAL_DEBUG in debug
>> builds
>
> IMO, --enable-debug should not do anything but include debugging
> symbols.
Robert Haas wrote:
> The funny thing is that I've been thinking all of these months
> about how convenient it is that we defined WAL_DEBUG in debug
> builds
IMO, --enable-debug should not do anything but include debugging
symbols. The ability to get a useful stack trace from a production
cras
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I found that by default WAL_DEBUG macro has been defined in
> 9.2dev and 9.1. I'm very surprised at this. Why does WAL_DEBUG
> need to be defined by default? The performance overhead
> introduced by WAL_DEBUG is really vanishingly low?
>
> WAL_D
On 07.10.2011 12:19, Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
I found that by default WAL_DEBUG macro has been defined in
9.2dev and 9.1. I'm very surprised at this. Why does WAL_DEBUG
need to be defined by default? The performance overhead
introduced by WAL_DEBUG is really vanishingly low?
WAL_DEBUG was defined
