Re: [HACKERS] debug_sortsupport GUC?

2015-03-22 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Ungh... yes, it's defined by default, but it clearly still requires > keeping the #ifdefs in there in order to still build if someone manually > undefines it. Was hoping to avoid the #ifdefs entirely - perhaps the > existing #ifdefs should ju

Re: [HACKERS] debug_sortsupport GUC?

2015-03-22 Thread Andrew Gierth
> "Peter" == Peter Geoghegan writes: >> So if these debugging elogs are to be kept at all, I propose that >> rather than being compile-time options they should be controlled by >> a debug_sortsupport GUC. Opinions? Peter> This seems like a reasonable idea. Why wouldn't it just be under

Re: [HACKERS] debug_sortsupport GUC?

2015-03-22 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > So if these debugging elogs are to be kept at all, I propose that rather > than being compile-time options they should be controlled by a > debug_sortsupport GUC. Opinions? This seems like a reasonable idea. Why wouldn't it just be under the

[HACKERS] debug_sortsupport GUC?

2015-03-21 Thread Andrew Gierth
The text abbreviation code has a compile-time option to emit DEBUGn elogs. I made no attempt to add these to the numeric abbreviation code because I find such things completely unhelpful; when you need to investigate such things other than in initial development, it's unlikely that you will be in