Re: ExecForceStoreMinimalTuple leaks memory like there's no tomorrow

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ExecForceStoreMinimalTuple leaks memory like there's no tomorrow
Date: 2019-04-19 18:55:45
Message-ID: 20190419185545.ocut2mhnydm5ki7u@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-04-18 19:04:09 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-04-15 22:46:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Using HEAD,
> >
> > create table t1 as select generate_series(1,40000000) id;
> > vacuum analyze t1;
> > explain select * from t1, t1 t1b where t1.id = t1b.id;
> > -- should indicate a hash join
> > explain analyze select * from t1, t1 t1b where t1.id = t1b.id;
> >
> > ... watch the process's memory consumption bloat. (It runs for
> > awhile before that starts to happen, but eventually it goes to
> > a couple of GB.)
> >
> > It looks to me like the problem is that ExecHashJoinGetSavedTuple
> > calls ExecForceStoreMinimalTuple with shouldFree = true, and
> > ExecForceStoreMinimalTuple's second code branch simply ignores
> > the requirement to free the supplied tuple.
>
> Thanks for finding. The fix is obviously easy - but looking through the
> code I think I found another similar issue. I'll fix both in one go
> tomorrow.

Pushed the combined fix for that. Thanks!

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Julien Rouhaud 2019-04-19 20:52:08 Re: Idea for fixing parallel pg_dump's lock acquisition problem
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-04-19 17:17:16 Re: Idea for fixing parallel pg_dump's lock acquisition problem