Обсуждение: Is it worth adding Assert(false) for iso-8859-1 paths in print_path()?

In [1] Andrey highlighted that I'd forgotten to add print_path()
handling for TidRangePaths in bb437f995.

I know the OPTIMIZER_DEBUG code isn't exactly well used.  I never
personally use it and I work quite a bit in the planner, however, if
we're keeping it, I thought maybe we might get the memo of missing
paths a bit sooner if we add an Assert(false) in the default cases.

Is the attached worthwhile?

David

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/379082d6-1b6a-4cd6-9ecf-7157d8c08635@postgrespro.ru

On 2023-Sep-29, David Rowley wrote:

> In [1] Andrey highlighted that I'd forgotten to add print_path()
> handling for TidRangePaths in bb437f995.
> 
> I know the OPTIMIZER_DEBUG code isn't exactly well used.  I never
> personally use it and I work quite a bit in the planner, however, if
> we're keeping it, I thought maybe we might get the memo of missing
> paths a bit sooner if we add an Assert(false) in the default cases.
> 
> Is the attached worthwhile?

Hmm, if we had a buildfarm animal with OPTIMIZER_DEBUG turned on, then I
agree it would catch the omission quickly.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"¿Cómo puedes confiar en algo que pagas y que no ves,
y no confiar en algo que te dan y te lo muestran?" (Germán Poo)

David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> In [1] Andrey highlighted that I'd forgotten to add print_path()
> handling for TidRangePaths in bb437f995.

> I know the OPTIMIZER_DEBUG code isn't exactly well used.  I never
> personally use it and I work quite a bit in the planner, however, if
> we're keeping it, I thought maybe we might get the memo of missing
> paths a bit sooner if we add an Assert(false) in the default cases.

FWIW, I'd argue for dropping print_path rather than continuing to
maintain it.  I never use it, finding pprint() to serve the need
better and more reliably.  However, assuming that we keep it ...

> Is the attached worthwhile?

... I think this is actually counterproductive.  It will certainly
not help draw the notice of anyone who wouldn't otherwise pay
attention to print_path.  Also, observe the extremely longstanding
policy decision in outNode's default: case:

                /*
                 * This should be an ERROR, but it's too useful to be able to
                 * dump structures that outNode only understands part of.
                 */
                elog(WARNING, "could not dump unrecognized node type: %d",
                     (int) nodeTag(obj));
                break;

The same argument applies to print_path, I should think.

            regards, tom lane

On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 03:23, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, I'd argue for dropping print_path rather than continuing to
> maintain it.  I never use it, finding pprint() to serve the need
> better and more reliably.

Then perhaps we just need to open a thread with an appropriate subject
to check if anyone finds it useful and if we don't get any response
after some number of weeks, just remove it from master.

David