Re: Assert Levels - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Assert Levels
Date
Msg-id 26439.1221860848@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Assert Levels  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Responses Re: Assert Levels  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Re: Assert Levels  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP patch: Collation support
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL future ideas