From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags |
Date: | 2005-11-02 22:51:54 |
Message-ID: | 20051102225154.GR55520@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:04:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> > BTW, that's a reversal from what I was originally arguing for, which was
> > due to the performance penalty associated with --enable-cassert. My
> > client is now running with Tom's suggestion of commenting out
> > CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY and MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING and performance is
> > good. It appears to be as good as it was with asserts disabled.
>
> Interesting. I've always wondered whether the "debug_assertions" GUC
> variable is worth the electrons it's printed on. If you are running
> with asserts active, that variable actually slows things down, by
> requiring an additional bool test for every Assert. I suppose the
> motivation was to allow the same compiled executable to be used for both
> assert-enabled and assert-disabled runs, but how many people really need
> that capability?
Not sure how that relates to CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY and
MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING :P, but I agree that it doesn't make sense to
have a GUC, at least not if asserts default to being compiled out.
Hrm... does debug_assertions end up changing assert_enabled?
BTW, is MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING that expensive? It seems like it
shouldn't be, but I'm only guessing at what exactly it does...
--
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 | 2005-11-02 22:53:48 | Re: 8.1RC1 fails to build on OS X (10.4) |
Previous Message | Idar Tollefsen | 2005-11-02 22:36:02 | Re: 8.1RC1 fails to build on OS X (10.4) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-11-02 22:56:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-11-02 21:50:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |