| From: | John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [dynahash] do not refill the hashkey after hash_search |
| Date: | 2023-10-25 05:48:52 |
| Message-ID: | CANWCAZYhutXX2AvkoRbhAFXh=Nb4uLETcZsw9oydAk61z6rV3Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'd prefer just adding "Assert(hentry->event == oldn);" and declaring
> > hentry PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY.
>
> I'm not aware of any other places where we have Asserts checking
> that hash_search() honored its contract. Why do we need one here?
[removing old CC]
The author pointed out here that we're not consistent in this regard:
...but I didn't try seeing where the balance lay. We can certainly
just remove redundant assignments.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-10-25 06:09:07 | Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-10-25 05:47:20 | Re: Guiding principle for dropping LLVM versions? |