From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ian Harding" <ianh(at)tpchd(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Memory Errors... |
Date: | 2002-09-19 16:52:39 |
Message-ID: | 26965.1032454359@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
I said:
> Yeah, I see very quick memory exhaustion also :-(. Looks like the
> spi_exec call is the culprit, but I'm not sure exactly why ...
> anyone have time to look at this?
On looking a little more closely, it's clear that pltcl_SPI_exec()
should be, and is not, calling SPI_freetuptable() once it's done with
the tuple table returned by SPI_exec(). This needs to be done in all
the non-elog code paths after SPI_exec has returned SPI_OK_SELECT.
pltcl_SPI_execp() has a similar problem, and there may be comparable
bugs in other pltcl routines (not to mention other sources of memory
leaks, but I think this is the problem for your example).
I have no time to work on this right now; any volunteers out there?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-09-19 17:41:20 | Re: [GENERAL] Memory Errors... |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-09-19 16:37:09 | Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-09-19 17:41:20 | Re: [GENERAL] Memory Errors... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-19 16:51:12 | Re: to_char() code cleanup |