| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", |
| Date: | 2005-10-28 21:55:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20051028215532.GB13187@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 05:45:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I suppose there's a bug in this path, but I'm darned if I can see what
> > it is. There are a number of obvious inefficiencies, but those
> > shouldn't be important given that this isn't supposed to happen much.
> > But how's it getting to the Assert failure?
>
> While I'm disinclined to change anything until we can explain why it's
> crashing, I suspect that the solution may be to avoid the recursive call
> of SimpleLruReadPage, as in the attached patch. Jim, are you interested
> in seeing if this patch makes the problem go away for you?
Well, this is a production system... what's the risk with that patch?
BTW, is it typical to see a 10 difference between asserts on and off? My
client has a process that was doing 10-20 records/sec with asserts on
and 90-110 with asserts off.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-28 22:06:33 | Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-28 21:45:51 | Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", |