Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)",

> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> "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?

Yes, but the crashes are somewhat sporadic and most importantly they don't appear to involve any data loss/corruption. I just don't want to make matters any worse.

In any case, my client's gone home for the weekend, so I doubt anything would happen until Monday.

> > 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.

Yeah, they're doing some not-so-good things like row-by-row operations, so that's probably what the issue is. I seem to recall 20% being the penalty that's normally thrown around, so I was just surprised by such a huge difference.