On 09/24/2011 01:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 24 September 2011 16:41, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Frankly, with the tool in its current state I'd rather not run it at
>> all, ever. The value per man-hour expended is too low. The mess it
>> made out of the xlog-related includes this time around makes me question
>> whether it's even a net benefit, regardless of whether it can be
>> guaranteed not to break things. Fundamentally, there's a large
>> component of design judgment/taste in the question of which header files
>> should include which others, but this tool does not have any taste.
> I agree. If this worked well in a semi-automated fashion, there'd be
> some other open source tool already available for us to use. As far as
> I know, there isn't. As we work around pgrminclude's bugs, its
> benefits become increasingly small and hard to quantify.
>
> If we're not going to use it, it should be removed from the tree.
>
Yeah, I've always been dubious about the actual benefit. At best this
can be seen as identifying some candidates for pruning, but as an
automated tool I'm inclined to write it off as a failed experiment.
cheers
andrew
