Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B4A2E3E28
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:20:12 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 78276-01-5
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:20:02 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055F32E34DB
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:04:42 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBRG4cnb011852;
	Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:04:38 -0500 (EST)
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
cc: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>,
	Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>,
	Devrim =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@commandprompt.com>
Subject: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances 
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0712271022280.3927@westnet.com> 
References: <1d4e0c10712251606q6f9503deye3da4b68c51bf5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1198668065.4221.288.camel@ebony.site>
	<1d4e0c10712260741w1f141fd6x2f482143d526ad48@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0712261316580.11546@westnet.com>
	<1d4e0c10712261352j2fbcd25ek1270331468d824b4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1d4e0c10712261453s4b171452g8aa30a1124f8fff1@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0712261816520.16448@westnet.com>
	<29359.1198735829@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20071227132002.GC5709@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<87fxxow5qb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0712271022280.3927@westnet.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
	message dated "Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:53:43 -0500"
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:04:38 -0500
Message-ID: <11851.1198771478@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200712/412
X-Sequence-Number: 28228

Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> ...  I didn't think this was a big problem because I 
> thought it was limited to developers who shot their own foot, but if there 
> are packagers turning this on to improve beta feedback it deserves some 
> wider mention.

Yeah, binary packages that are built with --enable-cassert perhaps need
to be labeled as "not intended for benchmarking" or some such.

			regards, tom lane