Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1opUcN-0008FG-OO for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:14:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1opUcL-000486-5v for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:14:17 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1opUcK-00047w-SZ for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:14:16 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1opUcI-0003kc-8o for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:14:15 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 29VDEAhv503617; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 09:14:10 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Michael Paquier , Nathan Bossart , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Simplifying our Trap/Assert infrastructure In-reply-to: References: <3928703.1665345117@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20221009210148.GA900071@nathanxps13> <20221012183620.GA1447761@nathanxps13> <572ed6f8-a137-0a52-a35e-a48df95af6ed@enterprisedb.com> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:02:35 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <503615.1667222050.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 09:14:10 -0400 Message-ID: <503616.1667222050@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > I don't think we need separate definitions for frontend and backend, > since the contained Assert() will take care of the difference. So the > attached would be simpler. WFM. regards, tom lane