Re: shall we have a TRACE_MEMORY mode

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shall we have a TRACE_MEMORY mode
Date: 2006-06-20 08:52:34
Message-ID: 1150793555.2587.138.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 00:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> One idea that comes to mind is to have a compile time option to record
> the palloc __FILE__ and _LINE__ in every AllocChunk header. Then it
> would not be so hard to identify the culprit while trawling through
> memory. The overhead costs would be so high that you'd never turn it on
> by default though :-(

Could we set that as an option for each memory context when we create
it? All or nothing seems too extreme for me for most cases.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2006-06-20 09:06:41 Re: Generic Monitoring Framework Proposal
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-06-20 08:44:52 Re: sync_file_range()