On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 01:44:32PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> I don't think I understand what you mean by this? I don't want to get
> rid of the check, but I was wondering if we could strengthen the
> behavior on HEAD to raise an ERROR regardless of whether assertions
> are enabled or not. Similar to the approach taken by
> SerializeComboCIDState().
Yeah, we could do that as well. I was looking at all routine calls,
but did not notice the elog(ERROR) thrown in this case for the
combocid case.
> I think the PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY fix is preferable for backport,
> so I don't want to get in the way of that approach.
The attached has been working for me. Thoughts?
--
Michael