Thank you both!
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 13:05, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 12:56, Andrew Kane wrote:
> > I've updated the patch to make verify_compact_attribute a no-op.
> >
> > The extension sets USE_ASSERT_CHECKING, which is why the macro approach
> > doesn't work (it won't take that path).
Andrew Kane writes:
> I've updated the patch to make verify_compact_attribute a no-op.
> The extension sets USE_ASSERT_CHECKING, which is why the macro approach
> doesn't work (it won't take that path).
LGTM
> Also, it looks like it fails when creating the extension / loading the
> shared librar
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 12:56, Andrew Kane wrote:
> I've updated the patch to make verify_compact_attribute a no-op.
>
> The extension sets USE_ASSERT_CHECKING, which is why the macro approach
> doesn't work (it won't take that path).
>
> Also, it looks like it fails when creating the extension /
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 12:48, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 12:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No, this completely fails to address the problem. The concern is
> >> that the extension has been compiled under USE_ASSERT_CHECKING,
> >> so it will try to call the fun
I've updated the patch to make verify_compact_attribute a no-op.
The extension sets USE_ASSERT_CHECKING, which is why the macro approach
doesn't work (it won't take that path).
Also, it looks like it fails when creating the extension / loading the
shared library (on Ubuntu), not when linking (as
David Rowley writes:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 12:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, this completely fails to address the problem. The concern is
>> that the extension has been compiled under USE_ASSERT_CHECKING,
>> so it will try to call the function. If the function's not there
>> in core, kaboom.
>
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 12:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > hmm, I didn't think of that scenario. I think since
> > verify_compact_attribute() does nothing when USE_ASSERT_CHECKING isn't
> > defined that we might as well define a ((void) 0) macro to avoid the
> > undefined symbol
David Rowley writes:
> hmm, I didn't think of that scenario. I think since
> verify_compact_attribute() does nothing when USE_ASSERT_CHECKING isn't
> defined that we might as well define a ((void) 0) macro to avoid the
> undefined symbol error. That'll avoid the useless call in your debug
> build
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 11:27, Andrew Kane wrote:
> Prior to 6f3820f, extensions could be compiled with -DUSE_ASSERT_CHECKING
> whether or not the Postgres installation was configured with --enable-cassert
> (to enable at least some assertion checking). However, after 6f3820f, linking
> fails wi
10 matches
Mail list logo
