On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:15 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > > My brain is rather fried for the rest of the day... But we could just > > be looking at using USE_ASSERT_CHECKING. Thoughts from other are > > welcome. > > I'd go with folding the condition into a plain Assert. Then it's > obvious that no code is added in a non-assert build. I can see that > some cases might be so complicated that that isn't nice, but this > case doesn't seem to qualify. >
Thank you for the comment. Attached the updated patch. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
fix_autovacuum_log_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
