mirror of
https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git
synced 2025-07-03 20:02:46 +03:00
Remove newly added useless assertion check
Coverity complained that my commit 80ba4bb383
added a dubious coding
for a consistency check that there isn't more than one row for a certain
tgrelid/tgparentid combination. But we don't check for that explicitly
anywhere else, and if we were to do it, it should be a full
shouldn't-happen elog not just an assert. It doesn't seem that this is
very important anyway, so remove it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1337562.1627224583@sss.pgh.pa.us
This commit is contained in:
@ -1615,7 +1615,6 @@ renametrig_partition(Relation tgrel, Oid partitionId, Oid parentTriggerOid,
|
|||||||
SysScanDesc tgscan;
|
SysScanDesc tgscan;
|
||||||
ScanKeyData key;
|
ScanKeyData key;
|
||||||
HeapTuple tuple;
|
HeapTuple tuple;
|
||||||
int found PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY = 0;
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/*
|
/*
|
||||||
* Given a relation and the OID of a trigger on parent relation, find the
|
* Given a relation and the OID of a trigger on parent relation, find the
|
||||||
@ -1636,8 +1635,6 @@ renametrig_partition(Relation tgrel, Oid partitionId, Oid parentTriggerOid,
|
|||||||
if (tgform->tgparentid != parentTriggerOid)
|
if (tgform->tgparentid != parentTriggerOid)
|
||||||
continue; /* not our trigger */
|
continue; /* not our trigger */
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Assert(found++ <= 0);
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
partitionRel = table_open(partitionId, NoLock);
|
partitionRel = table_open(partitionId, NoLock);
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/* Rename the trigger on this partition */
|
/* Rename the trigger on this partition */
|
||||||
@ -1658,6 +1655,9 @@ renametrig_partition(Relation tgrel, Oid partitionId, Oid parentTriggerOid,
|
|||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
table_close(partitionRel, NoLock);
|
table_close(partitionRel, NoLock);
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/* There should be at most one matching tuple */
|
||||||
|
break;
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
systable_endscan(tgscan);
|
systable_endscan(tgscan);
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user