Tom Lane [2010-04-30 12:51 -0400]:
> I concur, those two changes look worthwhile. The proposed Assert()
> additions are right out, though, as they would turn write failures
> into database crashes.
Right, that might be too strong.
> The current code doesn't even think that such a failure is worth
> testing for, so that's surely an overreaction. (And in any case, if
> Asserts are disabled, this change would fail to suppress the
> warning, no?)
It seems gcc is happy enough if you assign the returned value to a
variable. At least I have done a build without --enable-cassert (where
the entire Assert() was thrown away), and it didn't complain about the
unchecked result any more. I guess that heuristics gets it only so
far..
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
