Re: Surround CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe() with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Surround CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe() with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2736704.1719843695@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Surround CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe() with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Surround CheckRelation[Oid]LockedByMe() with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: