Re: relcache leak warnings vs. errors - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: relcache leak warnings vs. errors
Date
Msg-id 17297.1586809346@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: relcache leak warnings vs. errors  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: relcache leak warnings vs. errors  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?