> On 8 Mar 2024, at 12:25, Jelte Fennema-Nio <m...@jeltef.nl> wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 10:59, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: >> >> On 2024-Mar-08, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: >> >>> This works only if '* 'is specified as the only one character in >>> backtrace_functions = '*', right? If yes, what if someone sets >>> backtrace_functions = 'foo, bar, *, baz'? >> >> It throws an error, as expected. This is a useless waste of resources: >> checking for "foo" and "bar" is pointless, since the * is going to give >> a positive match anyway. And the "baz" is a waste of memory which is >> never going to be checked. > > Makes sense. Attached is a new patchset that implements it that way.
This version address the concerns raised by Alvaro, and even simplifies the code over earlier revisions. My documentation comments from upthread still stands, but other than those this version LGTM. > I've not included Bharath his 0003 patch, since it's a much bigger > change than the others, and thus might need some more discussion. Agreed. -- Daniel Gustafsson
