Re: Is it worth adding Assert(false) for unknown paths in print_path()?

David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> In [1] Andrey highlighted that I'd forgotten to add print_path()
> handling for TidRangePaths in bb437f995.

> I know the OPTIMIZER_DEBUG code isn't exactly well used. I never
> personally use it and I work quite a bit in the planner, however, if
> we're keeping it, I thought maybe we might get the memo of missing
> paths a bit sooner if we add an Assert(false) in the default cases.

FWIW, I'd argue for dropping print_path rather than continuing to
maintain it. I never use it, finding pprint() to serve the need
better and more reliably. However, assuming that we keep it ...

> Is the attached worthwhile?

... I think this is actually counterproductive. It will certainly
not help draw the notice of anyone who wouldn't otherwise pay
attention to print_path. Also, observe the extremely longstanding
policy decision in outNode's default: case:

/*
* This should be an ERROR, but it's too useful to be able to
* dump structures that outNode only understands part of.
*/
elog(WARNING, "could not dump unrecognized node type: %d",
(int) nodeTag(obj));
break;

The same argument applies to print_path, I should think.

regards, tom lane