Re: Compiler warning in costsize.c

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compiler warning in costsize.c
Date: 2017-04-10 16:50:19
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYdB0LrgMC9511Wri3tB2D+dp9rz5W6doHs6MbLjjsD3w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I wonder if we shouldn't just do
>>
>> RangeTblEntry *rte PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY;
>> ListCell *lc;
>>
>> /* Should only be applied to base relations that are subqueries */
>> Assert(rel->relid > 0);
>> -#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
>> rte = planner_rt_fetch(rel->relid, root);
>> Assert(rte->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY);
>> -#endif
>>
>> and eat the "useless" calculation of rte.
>
> That works as well. Now this code really has been written so as we
> don't want to do this useless computation for non-Assert builds,
> that's why I did not suggest it. But as it does just a list_nth call,
> that's not really costly... And other code paths dealing with the cost
> do it as well.

-1 from me. I'm not a big fan of useless calculation just because it
happens to be needed in an Assert-enabled build.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-04-10 16:50:54 Re: logical replication worker and statistics
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-04-10 16:47:50 Re: tuple-routing and constraint violation error message, revisited