On 10/2/17 03:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 06 Sep 2017, at 14:25, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Fine for 0002. This reminds me of LockGXact and RemoveGXact in >>> twophase.c, as well as _hash_squeezebucket that have some code paths >>> that cannot return... Any thoughts about having some kind of >>> PG_NOTREACHED defined to 0 which could be put in an assertion? >> >> Generally we just do "Assert(false)", maybe with "not reached" in a >> comment. I don't feel a strong need to invent a new way to do that. > > Moving this to the next commitfest and bumping status to Ready for committer > based on the discussion in this thread.
committed -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
