Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
> >> <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> >> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +