| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Date: | 2023-09-12 14:43:41 |
| Message-ID: | 2797648.1694529821@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> On 06.09.23 17:01, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Assert()ing that a pointer is not null, and in the next line
>> dereferencing that pointer, is useless: the process would crash anyway
>> at the time of dereference, so the Assert() adds no value. Better to
>> leave the assert out.
> I don't think this is quite correct. If you dereference a pointer, the
> compiler may assume that it is not null and rearrange code accordingly.
> So it might not crash. Keeping the assertion would alter that assumption.
Uh ... only in assert-enabled builds. If your claim is correct,
this'd result in different behavior in debug and production builds,
which would be even worse. But I don't believe the claim.
I side with Alvaro's position here: such an assert is unhelpful.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2023-09-12 14:53:28 | Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-09-12 14:40:22 | Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function? |