On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 09:08:57AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 7:30 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > wrote: >>> Istm we should introduce an InvalidTimeLineID, and explicitly initialize >>> sendTimeLine to that, and assert that it's valid / invalid in a bunch of >>> places? >> >> That's not a bad idea; it'll help discover bogus code. Obviously, some >> additional tests wouldn't harm -- we have a lot more coverage now than >> in embarrasingly recent past, but it can still be improved. > > +1.
There is already an assumption in walsender.c where an invalid timeline is 0, by the way? See sendTimeLineNextTLI and sendTimeLine. Asserting here and there looks like a good thing to do for code paths where the timeline should, or should not, be set. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
