> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 05:45:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Jim, are you interested > >> in seeing if this patch makes the problem go away for you? > > > Well, this is a production system... what's the risk with > that patch? > > Well, it's utterly untested, which means it might crash your system, > which is where you are now, no?
Yes, but the crashes are somewhat sporadic and most importantly they don't appear to involve any data loss/corruption. I just don't want to make matters any worse. In any case, my client's gone home for the weekend, so I doubt anything would happen until Monday. > > BTW, is it typical to see a 10 difference between asserts > on and off? My > > client has a process that was doing 10-20 records/sec with > asserts on > > and 90-110 with asserts off. > > Not typical, but I can believe there are some code paths like that. Yeah, they're doing some not-so-good things like row-by-row operations, so that's probably what the issue is. I seem to recall 20% being the penalty that's normally thrown around, so I was just surprised by such a huge difference. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly