Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:32 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> BTW, now that I think about it, CreateDestReceiver is not up to project
>> standards anyway, in that it fails to provide reasonable behavior in
>> the case where what's passed is not a legal value of the enum.
> Well, I might be responsible for the CreateDestReceiver thing -- or I
> might not, I haven't checked -- but I do think that style is a bit
> cleaner and more elegant. I think it's VERY unlikely that anyone would
> ever manage to call it with something that's not a legal value of the
> enum, and if they do, I think the chances of surviving are basically
> nil, and frankly, I'd rather die. If you asked me where you want me to
> store my output and I tell you to store it in the sdklgjsdjgslkdg, you
> really should refuse to do anything at all, not just stick my output
> someplace-or-other and hope for the best.
Well, yeah, that's exactly my point. But in my book, "refuse to do
anything" should be "elog(ERROR)", not "invoke undefined behavior".
An actual abort() call might be all right here, in that at least
we'd know what would happen and we could debug it once we got hold
of a stack trace. But pg_unreachable() is not that. Basically, if
there's *any* circumstance, broken code or not, where control could
reach a pg_unreachable() call, you did it wrong.
regards, tom lane