| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Assertion failure in get_attstatsslot() |
| Date: | 2010-07-09 23:45:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20100709234505.GA23962@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
1;2401;0cOn Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 06:49:27PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie jul 09 12:16:42 -0400 2010:
>
> > If anybody feels really uncomfortable with that, we could add a
> > compensating "Assert(IsBinaryCoercible(ARR_ELEMTYPE(statarray),
> > atttype))" into get_attstatsslot(). Not sure if it's worth the cycles.
> Cycles spent only in assert-enabled builds? Why not?
The slower assert-enabled is, the less likely it is that somebody can
run serious testing on it - potentially catching bugs way much easier.
Contrarily to your statement I would actually like to remove some
older asserts.
For example AtEOXact_Buffers makes it significantly expensive to do
assert tests on larger shbuf setups.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boxuan Zhai | 2010-07-10 02:25:55 | gSoC - ADD MERGE COMMAND - code patch submission |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-09 23:08:09 | Re: Assertion failure in get_attstatsslot() |