Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jQA8J-0002Xa-2s for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:37:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jQA8H-0007tY-4l for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:37:13 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jQA8G-0007tR-UE for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:37:12 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jQA8E-0006Jr-Kr for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:37:11 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 03JDb836026610; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:37:08 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: HEAPDEBUGALL is broken In-reply-to: <645c0646-4218-d4c3-409a-a7003a0c108d@2ndquadrant.com> References: <645c0646-4218-d4c3-409a-a7003a0c108d@2ndquadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Sun, 19 Apr 2020 14:50:27 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <26608.1587303428.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 09:37:08 -0400 Message-ID: <26609.1587303428@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > The HEAPDEBUGALL define has been broken since PG12 due to tableam > changes. Should we just remove this? It doesn't look very useful. > It's been around since Postgres95. > If we opt for removing: PG12 added an analogous HEAPAMSLOTDEBUGALL > (which still compiles correctly). Would we want to keep that? +1 for removing both. There are a lot of such debug "features" in the code, and few of them are worth anything IME. regards, tom lane