| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Annoying warning in SerializeClientConnectionInfo |
| Date: | 2025-08-13 03:54:27 |
| Message-ID: | aJwMc7iy5nmCXuuz@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 01:44:32PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> I don't think I understand what you mean by this? I don't want to get
> rid of the check, but I was wondering if we could strengthen the
> behavior on HEAD to raise an ERROR regardless of whether assertions
> are enabled or not. Similar to the approach taken by
> SerializeComboCIDState().
Yeah, we could do that as well. I was looking at all routine calls,
but did not notice the elog(ERROR) thrown in this case for the
combocid case.
> I think the PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY fix is preferable for backport,
> so I don't want to get in the way of that approach.
The attached has been working for me. Thoughts?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Append-PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY-on-a-function-variab.patch | text/x-diff | 1.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-08-13 03:55:41 | Re: Adding locks statistics |
| Previous Message | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM | 2025-08-13 03:40:35 | Proposal: GUC to control starting/stopping logical subscription workers |