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

From Richard Guo
Subject Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var
Date
Msg-id CAMbWs49HGa0F1JA1xmuFYt87OJ1QQjGZjmGJ0PtRmL_t0UPTmw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var
Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var
List pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 2:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
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.

Then here is a trivial patch to adjust the comment, which should get
reverted along with 867be9c07.

Thanks
Richard
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nikita Malakhov
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid detoast overhead when possible
Next
From: Krishnakumar R
Date:
Subject: Re: Add missing error codes to PANIC/FATAL error reports in xlogrecovery