From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
Date: | 2011-02-01 17:51:04 |
Message-ID: | 1296582664.11513.823.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 11:01 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> My compiler doesn't.
Strange. Maybe it requires -O2?
> Would it make sense to elog here, rather than
> Assert? I'm not clear on the rules for that.
elog looks fine there to me, assuming we have the default case. I'm not
100% clear on the rules, either. I think invalid input/corruption are
usually elog (so they can be caught in non-assert builds); but other
switch statements have them as well ("unrecognized node...").
> A small push dealing with all the above issues and adding a little
> to comments:
>
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=users/kgrittn/postgres.git;a=commitdiff;h=538ff57691256de0341e22513f59e9dc4dfd998f
>
> Let me know if any of that still needs work to avoid confusion and
> comply with PostgreSQL coding conventions. Like I said, I'm not
> totally clear whether elog is right here, but it seems to me a
> conceptually similar case to some I found elsewhere that elog was
> used.
Looks good. It also looks like it contains a bugfix for subtransactions,
right?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-02-01 17:58:52 | Re: Spread checkpoint sync |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-01 17:47:03 | Re: FPI |