From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AssertLog instead of Assert in some places |
Date: | 2023-08-11 17:57:23 |
Message-ID: | 20230811175723.gyxxryi5u6xc44zq@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-08-11 17:59:37 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Most of the Asserts are recoverable by rolling back the transaction
> without crashing the backend. So an elog(ERROR, ) is enough. But just
> by themselves elogs are compiled into non-debug binary and the
> condition check can waste CPU cycles esp. conditions are mostly true
> like the ones we use in Assert.
>
> Attached patch combines Assert and elog(ERROR, ) so that when an
> Assert is triggered in assert-enabled binary, it will throw an error
> while keeping the backend intact. Thus it does not affect gdb session
> or psql session. These elogs do not make their way to non-assert
> binary so do not make it to production like Assert.
I am quite strongly against this. This will lead to assertions being hit in
tests without that being noticed, e.g. because they happen in a background
process that just restarts.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marcelo Juchem | 2023-08-11 17:59:27 | Re: [PATCH] Support static linking against LLVM |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-08-11 17:51:11 | Re: walsender "wakeup storm" on PG16, likely because of bc971f4025c (Optimize walsender wake up logic using condition variables) |