On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:57 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I am quite strongly against this. This will lead to assertions being hit in
> tests without that being noticed, e.g. because they happen in a background
> process that just restarts.
Couldn't you say the same thing about defensive "can't happen" ERRORs?
They are essentially a form of assertion that isn't limited to
assert-enabled builds.
I have sometimes thought that it would be handy if there was a variant
of "can't happen" ERRORs that took on the structure of an assertion.
(This is quite different to what Ashutosh has proposed, though, since
it would still look like a conventional assertion failure on
assert-enabled builds.)
--
Peter Geoghegan