| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Assert Levels |
| Date: | 2008-09-19 21:47:28 |
| Message-ID: | 26439.1221860848@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Greg Stark wrote:
>> This is a good example of why running with assertions enabled on production
>> might not be a good idea. But it's also a good example of why we should do
>> our performance testing with assertions enabled if we can do it without
>> invalidating the results.
> The performance impact of assertions is large enough that I don't think
> that goal is practical.
Well, there are certain things that --enable-cassert turns on that are
outrageously expensive; notably CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY and
MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING. It wouldn't be too unreasonable to decouple
those things somehow (with a means more accessible than editing
pg_config_manual.h).
I don't think anyone knows what the performance impact of just the
regular Asserts is; it's been too long since these other things were
stuck in there.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2008-09-19 21:54:49 | Re: PostgreSQL future ideas |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-09-19 21:40:07 | Re: Do we really need a 7.4.22 release now? |