Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 125789.1701455228@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: A wrong comment about search_indexed_tlist_for_var
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > On 2023-Dec-01, Richard Guo wrote: >> However, this cross-check will also be performed in non-debug builds >> ever since commit 867be9c07, which converts this check from Asserts to >> test-and-elog. The commit message there also says: >> Committed separately with the idea that eventually we'll revert >> this. It might be awhile though. >> I wonder if now is the time to revert it, since there have been no >> related bugs reported for quite a while. > I don't know anything about this, but maybe it would be better to let > these elogs there for longer, so that users have time to upgrade and > test. Yeah. It's good that we've not had field reports against 16.0 or 16.1, but we can't really expect that 16.x has seen widespread adoption yet. I do think we should revert this eventually, but I'd wait perhaps another year. > OTOH keeping the elog there might impact performance. Would that be > significant? Doubt it'd be anything measurable, in comparison to all the other stuff the planner does. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: