Re: Reject negative max_retention_duration values - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Reject negative max_retention_duration values
Date
Msg-id aij42d-KJF09YGyV@paquier.xyz
Whole thread
In response to RE: Reject negative max_retention_duration values  ("Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>)
Responses Re: Reject negative max_retention_duration values
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 05:12:26AM +0000, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Dear Chao,
>
> > Yes, this patch rejects negative values at CREATE/ALTER SUBSCRIPTION time,
> > so in theory the if (MySubscription->maxretention <= 0) change is not strictly
> > necessary. I made that change for a few reasons (from strong do weak):
>
> I personal preference is to use Assert() for detecting cannot-happen case,
> but it's not very strong opinion. Let's see how others say.

An assertion offers less protection than an elog(ERROR) if a value is
read from catalogs, which could be the case here?  Think for example
corrupted catalog data.  (I did not read the patch in details, so I
may have missed something, of course, but I was under the impression
that this could apply for this case with MySubscription.)
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: Reject negative max_retention_duration values
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: Boyer-Moore-Horspool optimization for LIKE '%pattern%' searches