Re: [HACKERS] Temp Table Memory Leak

> Kristofer Munn <kmunn(at)munn(dot)com> writes:
> > I've created a sample case that reproduces the error that I will attach
> > with this message. Basically, I create a 50 column temp table (with no
> > rows in it) and then run updates on each column in succession. The
> > backend gets large pretty quick - I'm seeing about 12Megs after running
> > the enclosed script which does an update on all 50 columns 3 times (150
> > updates).
>
> I confirm the leak in 6.5.* --- but I see no leak in current sources.

Great. Now the big question is should we backpatch, and if so do we
want a 6.5.4. I know you(Tom) have put a number of patches into the
6.5.* branch, and we are at least 2 months away from our next release.

Comments?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026