On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > My brain is rather fried for the rest of the day... But we could just
> > be looking at using USE_ASSERT_CHECKING. Thoughts from other are
> > welcome.
>
> I'd go with folding the condition into a plain Assert. Then it's
> obvious that no code is added in a non-assert build. I can see that
> some cases might be so complicated that that isn't nice, but this
> case doesn't seem to qualify.
>
Thank you for the comment. Attached the updated patch.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center