On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:48:52PM +0700, John Naylor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:21 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> John Naylor <johncnaylo...@gmail.com> writes: >> > I'd prefer just adding "Assert(hentry->event == oldn);" and declaring >> > hentry PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY. >> >> I'm not aware of any other places where we have Asserts checking >> that hash_search() honored its contract. Why do we need one here? > > [removing old CC] > The author pointed out here that we're not consistent in this regard: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEG8a3KEO_Kdt2Y5hFNWMEX3DpCXi9jtZOJY-GFUEE9QLgF%2Bbw%40mail.gmail.com > > ...but I didn't try seeing where the balance lay. We can certainly > just remove redundant assignments.
While it probably doesn't hurt anything, IMHO it's unnecessary to verify that hash_search() works every time it is called. This behavior seems unlikely to change anytime soon, too. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
