Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> That means you're for a (differently named) disable macro? Or is it not
>> recent enough that you don't care?
> I'm leaning toward thinking we should just rip it out. The fact that
> 3 out of the 4 people commenting on this thread have used it at some
> point provides some evidence that it has more than no value - but on
> the other hand, there's a cost to keeping it around.
Yeah. For the record, I've used it too (don't recall what for exactly).
But I don't think it's worth adding yet another layer of complication for.
The main argument for it given in this thread is recompile cost ...
but TBH, I have one word for anybody who's worried about that, and
that word is "ccache". If you don't have that tool installed, you're
missing out on a huge timesaver.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
