Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2025-07-12 13:42:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't care for this patch: replacing an Assert with pg_assume just
>> seems like a very bad idea.
> That shouldn't be a problem - pg_assume() is defined to be an Assert() in
> USE_ASSERT_CHECKING builds.
Ah, my bad. But there's still the question of exactly what reasoning
the compiler is using to arrive at the conclusion that it need not
warn given these assertions, and whether we want to rely on that
reasoning not changing. I'd prefer to simplify matters.
regards, tom lane