"Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> Yes, I do get the similar results.
> A quick investigation shows that the SPI_freetuptable at the end of
> pltcl_SPI_exec is trying to free a tuptable of value 0x82ebe64
> (which looks sensible to me) but which has a memory context of
> 0x7f7f7f7f (the unallocated marker).
Attached is a patch against CVS HEAD which fixes this, I believe. The
problem appears to be the newly added free of the tuptable at the end
of pltcl_SPI_exec(). I've added a comment to that effect:
* Do *NOT* free the tuptable here. That's because if the loop
* body executed any SQL statements, it will have already free'd
* the tuptable itself, so freeing it twice is not wise. We could
* get around this by making a copy of SPI_tuptable->vals and
* feeding that to pltcl_set_tuple_values above, but that would
* still leak memory (the palloc'ed copy would only be free'd on
* context reset).
At least, I *think* that's the problem -- I've only been looking at
the code for about 20 minutes, so I may be wrong. In any case, this
makes both memleak() and memleak(1) work on my machine. Let me know if
it works for you, and/or if someone knows of a better solution.
I also added some SPI_freetuptable() calls in some places where Nigel
didn't, and added some paranoia when dealing with statically sized
buffers (snprintf() rather than sprintf(), and so on). I also didn't
include Nigel's changes to some apparently unrelated PL/Python stuff
-- this patch includes only the PL/Tcl changes.
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2002-09-25 05:10:01|
|Subject: Re: Postgresql Automatic vacuum|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-09-25 04:49:34|
|Subject: Re: making use of large TLB pages |