From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Surround CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe() with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING |
Date: | 2024-07-01 14:21:35 |
Message-ID: | 2736704.1719843695@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:42:46AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> I think it would make sense to declare / define those functions only for
>> assert enabled build: please find attached a tiny patch doing so.
> Not convinced that's a good idea. What about out-of-core code that
> may use these routines for runtime checks in non-assert builds?
Yeah. Also, I believe it's possible for an extension that's been
built with assertions enabled to be used with a core server that
wasn't. This is why, for example, ExceptionalCondition() is not
ifdef'd away in a non-assert build. Even if you think there's
no use for CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe except in assertions,
it'd still be plenty reasonable for an extension to call them
in assertions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-07-01 14:22:32 | Re: gamma() and lgamma() functions |
Previous Message | Stepan Neretin | 2024-07-01 14:20:08 | Re: gamma() and lgamma() functions |