From: | Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(at)ttnet(dot)net(dot)tr> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: "cache reference leak" and "problem in alloc set" warnings |
Date: | 2006-08-17 13:13:25 |
Message-ID: | 20060817131325.GA1323@alamut.tdm.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 16 04:20, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> On Aug 16 03:09, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> > WARNING: problem in alloc set ExprContext: detected write past chunk
> > end in block 0x8462f00, chunk 0x84634c8
> > WARNING: cache reference leak: cache pg_type (34), tuple 2/7 has
> > count 1
>
> Excuse me for bugging the list. I've solved the problem. I should look
> for ReleaseSysCache() call just after every SearchSysCache().
Looks like this only solves catalog search related allocation issues.
I've still biten by a single "write past chunk" error while returning a
record in PL/scheme:
WARNING: problem in alloc set ExprContext: detected write past chunk
end in block 0x84a0598, chunk 0x84a0c84
First, I thouht that it was because of clobbering a memory chunk that
doesn't belong to me. But when I place a
{ char *tmp = palloc(32); printf("-> %p\n", tmp); pfree(tmp) }
line at the entrance and end of PL handler, outputed bounds don't
include above 0x84a0598 chunk. Even the address of the heap tuples I
created are far distinct from the address in the error message.
I don't have any clue about the problematic section of the code,
although I know that it occurs when you return a record. I'd be very
very appreciated if somebody can help me to figure out how to debug (or
even solve) the problem.
Regards.
P.S. Here's the related source code: http://cvs.pgfoundry.org/cgi-bin/
cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/plscheme/plscheme/plscheme-8.2.c?rev=1.3&content
-type=text/plain in case of if anyone would want to take a look at.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-17 13:14:57 | Re: CREATE INDEX ... ONLINE |
Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2006-08-17 13:09:03 | Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results |