Re: Memory leak of SMgrRelation object on standby

Hi~

> On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 12:50 AM Jingtang Zhang <mrdrivingduck(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Back to v17, commit 21d9c3ee gave SMgrRelation a well-defined lifetime, and
>> smgrclose nolonger removes SMgrRelation object from the hashtable, leaving
>> the work to smgrdestroyall. But I find a place that relies on the removing
>> behavior previously, but is still calling smgrclose.

Also, in this situation, should startup process be treated as a background
worker similar to bgwriter/checkpointer and call smgrdestroyall in some
period? Even if startup process begins to call smgrdestroy inside
DropRelationFiles, suppose, there are a lot of transactions keep creating
tables on primary, the startup process of standby will open and create but
do not have any chance to destroy a SMgrRelation object, so the memory
will always grow. It seems to be true even if smgrclose is responsible for
destroying the object previously, because I can't find any smgrclose during
WAL recovery, except for DROP DATABASE which is rarely used in production.

—
Regards, Jingtang