Re: Memory leak in deferrable index constraints

Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com> writes:
> On 31 January 2010 16:03, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It seems a bit unlikely that this would be the largest memory leak in
>> that area. Can you show a test case that demonstrates this is worth
>> worrying about?

> create table foo(a int unique deferrable initially deferred);
> insert into foo (select * from generate_series(1, 10000000));
> begin;
> update foo set a=a+1;
> set constraints all immediate;
> commit;

Thanks. I had forgotten all the work we put into minimizing the size of
the deferred trigger queue. In this example it's only 16 bytes per
entry, whereas a 1-element List is going to involve 16 bytes for the
header, 8 bytes for the cell, plus two palloc item overheads --- and
double all that on a 64-bit machine. So yeah, this is a significant
leak. Patch applied.

regards, tom lane