On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:57 AM Andres Freund <and...@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
