From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: relcache leak warnings vs. errors |
Date: | 2020-04-13 20:22:26 |
Message-ID: | 17297.1586809346@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-04-11 10:54:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I guess you could make them PANICs, but it would be an option that nobody
>> could possibly want to have enabled in anything resembling production.
>> So I"m kind of -0.5 on making --enable-cassert do it automatically.
>> Although I suppose that it's not really worse than other assertion
>> failures.
> I'd much rather see this throw an assertion than the current
> behaviour. But I'm wondering if there's a chance we can throw an error
> in non-assert builds without adding too much complexity to the error
> paths. Could we perhaps throw the error a bit later during the commit
> processing?
Any error post-commit is a semantic disaster.
I guess that an assertion wouldn't be so awful, if people would rather
do it like that in debug builds.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-13 20:29:07 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-04-13 20:20:38 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |