| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| 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 22:06:33 |
| Message-ID: | 5860.1130537193@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 05:45:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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?
Well, it's utterly untested, which means it might crash your system,
which is where you are now, no?
> 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.
Not typical, but I can believe there are some code paths like that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2005-10-28 22:10:19 | Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-10-28 21:55:32 | Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", |