Re: Surround CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe() with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bertrand Drouvot
Subject Re: Surround CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe() with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
Date
Msg-id ZoK/dHwIpPiNIHzv@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Surround CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe() with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 10:21:35AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:42:46AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> >> I think it would make sense to declare / define those functions only for
> >> assert enabled build: please find attached a tiny patch doing so.
> 
> > Not convinced that's a good idea.  What about out-of-core code that
> > may use these routines for runtime checks in non-assert builds?
> 
> Yeah.  Also, I believe it's possible for an extension that's been
> built with assertions enabled to be used with a core server that
> wasn't.  This is why, for example, ExceptionalCondition() is not
> ifdef'd away in a non-assert build.  Even if you think there's
> no use for CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe except in assertions,
> it'd still be plenty reasonable for an extension to call them
> in assertions.

Yeah good point, thanks for the feedback! I've withdrawn the CF entry.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we document how column DEFAULT expressions work?