Re: fix_PGSTAT_NUM_TABENTRIES_macro patch
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fix_PGSTAT_NUM_TABENTRIES_macro patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19756.1388705888@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: fix_PGSTAT_NUM_TABENTRIES_macro patch (Mark Dilger <markdilger@yahoo.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: fix_PGSTAT_NUM_TABENTRIES_macro patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Dilger <markdilger@yahoo.com> writes: > I still don't understand why this case in src/include/pgstat.h > is different from cases elsewhere in the code. The reason why I'm exercised about it is that (a) somebody actually made a mistake of this type, and (b) it wasn't caught by any automated testing. The catalog and WAL-related examples you cite would probably crash and burn in fairly obvious ways if somebody broke them --- for instance, the most likely way to break SizeOfHeapHeader would be by adding another field after t_hoff, but we'd notice that before long because said field would be corrupted on arrival at a replication slave. In contrast, messing up the pgstats message sizes would have no consequences worse than a hard-to-detect, and probably platform-specific, performance penalty for stats transmission. So unless we think that's of absolutely zero concern, adding a mechanism to make such bugs more apparent seems useful. I'm not against adding more assertions elsewhere, but it's a bit hard to see what those asserts should test. I don't see any practical way to assert that field X is the last one in its struct, for instance. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: