Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> In fact, I'm going to go further and say that I do not like the entire
>> concept of scannability, either as to design or implementation, and
>> I think we should just plain rip it out.

> This has been my feeling from the beginning, so I'm happy to support
> this position. I think the current version - where scan-ability is
> tracked in just one way - is an improvement over the previous version
> of the patch - where it was tracked in two different ways with a
> confusing shuffle of information from one place to the other. But my
> favorite number of places to track it would be zero.

To be clear, I think we'll end up tracking some notion of scannability
eventually. I just don't think the current notion is sufficiently baked
to want to promise to be upward-compatible with it in future.

regards, tom lane