debug_sortsupport GUC?

Started by Andrew Gierthalmost 11 years ago4 messages
#1Andrew Gierth
andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk

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 a position to recompile. Also, as I showed at some
length earlier, even recompiling with an apparently irrelevant change
can have enough of an effect on performance to make investigation more
complex.

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?

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

#2Peter Geoghegan
pg@heroku.com
In reply to: Andrew Gierth (#1)
Re: debug_sortsupport GUC?

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Andrew Gierth
<andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> 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
existing trace_sort GUC, though? That's been enabled by default since
8.1. It's already defined in pg_config_manual.h.

--
Peter Geoghegan

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

#3Andrew Gierth
andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk
In reply to: Peter Geoghegan (#2)
Re: debug_sortsupport GUC?

"Peter" == Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> 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
Peter> the existing trace_sort GUC, though? That's been enabled by
Peter> default since 8.1. It's already defined in pg_config_manual.h.

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 just be removed? If it's been enabled since 8.1
it seems unlikely to be causing anyone any issues.

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

#4Peter Geoghegan
pg@heroku.com
In reply to: Andrew Gierth (#3)
Re: debug_sortsupport GUC?

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Andrew Gierth
<andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> 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 just be removed? If it's been enabled since 8.1
it seems unlikely to be causing anyone any issues.

I'd vote for removing the #ifdefs, and using trace_sort.

--
Peter Geoghegan

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers