Re: [HACKERS] Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert

2010-08-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Greg Smith wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Nobody else seems to have commented, but maybe what this suggests is >> we need to be able to individually disable a few of the most expensive >> checks.  I'm not sure what a reasonable API is for that ... not sure >> that

Re: [HACKERS] Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert

2010-08-16 Thread Greg Smith
Tom Lane wrote: Nobody else seems to have commented, but maybe what this suggests is we need to be able to individually disable a few of the most expensive checks. I'm not sure what a reasonable API is for that ... not sure that I like the thought of a GUC for each one. I'd really like to b

Re: [HACKERS] Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert

2010-08-15 Thread Andres Freund
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 03:41:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On Friday 06 August 2010 20:23:15 Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'd be willing to consider a "half assert" mode that turns off some of > >> the most expensive checks, but AtEOXact_Buffers is hardly the only thing > >> tha

Re: [HACKERS] Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert

2010-08-15 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On Friday 06 August 2010 20:23:15 Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd be willing to consider a "half assert" mode that turns off some of >> the most expensive checks, but AtEOXact_Buffers is hardly the only thing >> that ought to be in that list. The CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY and memory >>

Re: [HACKERS] Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert

2010-08-11 Thread Andres Freund
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:51:36AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > >The most prohibitively expensive part is the AtEOXact_Buffers > >check of running through all buffers and checking their pin count. > >And it makes $app's regression tests take thrice their time... > Have you trie

Re: [HACKERS] Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert

2010-08-10 Thread Greg Smith
Andres Freund wrote: The most prohibitively expensive part is the AtEOXact_Buffers check of running through all buffers and checking their pin count. And it makes $app's regression tests take thrice their time... Have you tried reducing shared_buffers from the default the system found by p

Re: [HACKERS] Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert

2010-08-06 Thread Andres Freund
On Friday 06 August 2010 20:23:15 Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > The most prohibitively expensive part is the AtEOXact_Buffers check of > > running through all buffers and checking their pin count. And it makes > > $app's regression tests take thrice their time... > > > > Would someb

Re: [HACKERS] Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert

2010-08-06 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > The most prohibitively expensive part is the AtEOXact_Buffers check of > running > through all buffers and checking their pin count. And it makes $app's > regression tests take thrice their time... > Would somebody object agains putting those in an extra define so that

[HACKERS] Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert

2010-08-06 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, I do test (and even run) some stuff running with cassert enabled. For many things the reliability and performance is ok enough and its useful, especially if you have your own c functions and such. Imho thats useful as it makes catching some bugs more likely... The most prohibitively expensi