Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var
Date
Msg-id 125789.1701455228@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2023-Dec-01, Richard Guo wrote:
>> However, this cross-check will also be performed in non-debug builds
>> ever since commit 867be9c07, which converts this check from Asserts to
>> test-and-elog.  The commit message there also says:
>> Committed separately with the idea that eventually we'll revert
>> this.  It might be awhile though.
>> I wonder if now is the time to revert it, since there have been no
>> related bugs reported for quite a while.

> I don't know anything about this, but maybe it would be better to let
> these elogs there for longer, so that users have time to upgrade and
> test.

Yeah.  It's good that we've not had field reports against 16.0 or 16.1,
but we can't really expect that 16.x has seen widespread adoption yet.
I do think we should revert this eventually, but I'd wait perhaps
another year.

> OTOH keeping the elog there might impact performance.  Would that be
> significant?

Doubt it'd be anything measurable, in comparison to all the other
stuff the planner does.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Tristan Partin"
Date:
Subject: Re: meson: Stop using deprecated way getting path of files
Next
From: shihao zhong
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix bogus Asserts in calc_non_nestloop_required_outer