|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: profiling connection overhead|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Or make it execute only in assert-enabled mode, perhaps.
> But making the check execute only in assert-enabled more
> doesn't seem right, since the check actually acts to mask other coding
> errors, rather than reveal them. Maybe we replace the check with one
> that only occurs in an Assert-enabled build and just loops through and
> does Assert(PrivateRefCount[i] == 0).
Yeah, that would be sensible. There is precedent for this elsewhere
too; I think there's a similar setup for checking buffer refcounts
during transaction cleanup.
> I'm not sure exactly where this
> gets called in the shutdown sequence, though - is it sensible to
> Assert() here?
Assert is sensible anywhere.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2010-11-24 16:34:37||Re: Suggested "easy" TODO: pg_dump --from-list|
|Previous Message||Robert Haas||2010-11-24 16:20:38||Re: profiling connection overhead|