Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Kevin Grittner > >> <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > >> > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 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 > >> > crash, without compromising performance, is just too important by > >> > itself to consider conditioning any other behavior on it. > >> > >> So, should I go revert this change in head and 9.1, or does anyone > >> else want to argue for Heikki's position that we should just leave it > >> on, on the theory that it's too cheap to matter? > > > > 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 presumably we don't want to > leave it on in 9.1 for the 5 years or so it remains a supported > release).
I am concerned about changing behavior on people in a minor release --- it is not about risk in this case. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
