| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AssertLog instead of Assert in some places |
| Date: | 2023-08-11 18:14:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkQgj65N501TigpUWfdLFWOL7ZKLcpSV-1djs1Kwvs2wA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:57 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> 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.
Couldn't you say the same thing about defensive "can't happen" ERRORs?
They are essentially a form of assertion that isn't limited to
assert-enabled builds.
I have sometimes thought that it would be handy if there was a variant
of "can't happen" ERRORs that took on the structure of an assertion.
(This is quite different to what Ashutosh has proposed, though, since
it would still look like a conventional assertion failure on
assert-enabled builds.)
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-08-11 18:23:50 | Re: AssertLog instead of Assert in some places |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-08-11 18:13:40 | Re: [PATCH] Support static linking against LLVM |