Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1gtaeL-0005Cb-LS
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:11:10 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1gtaeI-0006yr-Gh
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:11:06 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <a.sher@postgrespro.ru>)
	id 1gtaeI-0006yj-2U
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:11:06 +0000
Received: from mail.postgrespro.ru ([93.174.131.138])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <a.sher@postgrespro.ru>)
	id 1gtaeA-0004k7-J2
	for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:11:04 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.postgrespro.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1533921CC9F2;
	Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:10:56 +0300 (MSK)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at postgrespro.ru
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=x tagged_above=-99 required=4 WHITELISTED tests=[]
	autolearn=unavailable
Received: from ars-thinkpad (gw.postgrespro.ru [93.174.131.141])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by mail.postgrespro.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D36F421CC9E9;
	Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:10:55 +0300 (MSK)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=postgrespro.ru;
	s=mail; t=1549987855;
	bh=+lkiqcuG+XTE+NZ4fs5GCc/5agvEtzjXrNsnuJtbRNg=;
	h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-reply-to:Date;
	b=PyWWWxLVh9pp7Lk3AnFmoBMZVj7z7553Kyvnpzy1c7PiU74idtUjpe8wKs5C0SkOr
	 tBzA7wgU5PrIDTCzoyGjqahjnyhT5311PP7nfCul4IeH42CwIXOJmWYczURiNCy6ky
	 QTZt2750S2gKu16NoVGWrKHvBft9R+kKJPg3LFtg=
References: <20190211185003.GA27084@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20190212135343.GA29518@alvherre.pgsql>
User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 26.0.50
From: Arseny Sher <a.sher@postgrespro.ru>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Alexander Lakhin <a.lakhin@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: Too rigorous assert in reorderbuffer.c
In-reply-to: <20190212135343.GA29518@alvherre.pgsql>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:10:55 +0300
Message-ID: <87tvh9xa0g.fsf@ars-thinkpad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Precedence: bulk


Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

>> I thought the blanket removal of the assert() was excessive, and we can
>> relax it instead; what do you think of the attached?
>
> More precisely, my question was: with this change, does the code still
> work correctly in your non-toy case?

Yes, it works. I thought for a moment that some obscure cases where cmax
on a single tuple is not strictly monotonic might exist, but looks like
they don't. So your change is ok for me, reshaping assert is better than
removing. make check is also good on all supported branches.


--
Arseny Sher
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company