| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Benjamin Coutu <ben(dot)coutu(at)zeyos(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Using ASSUME in place of ASSERT in non-assert builds |
| Date: | 2025-07-10 15:35:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1529814.1752161726@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Benjamin Coutu <ben(dot)coutu(at)zeyos(dot)com> writes:
> That got me thinking: some projects (like PHP) map the ASSERT macro to ASSUME in non-assert builds. The rationale is that ASSERT typically expresses a tautology, something the programmer believes to be always true. So in builds where assertions are compiled out, we can still pass that information to the optimizer via ASSUME.
My gut instinct is that this would not help much; we don't typically
write assertions that would help the compiler all that much. And
in any case, to my mind there is a considerable difference in goals
between Assert and Assume, which I'd prefer not to fuzz like this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhou, Zhiguo | 2025-07-10 15:57:01 | Re: Optimize shared LWLock acquisition for high-core-count systems |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-07-10 15:31:45 | Re: Adding basic NUMA awareness |