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
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 |