| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "李海洋(陌痕)" <mohen(dot)lhy(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com> |
| Cc: | feichanghong <feichanghong(at)qq(dot)com>, ocean_li_996 <ocean_li_996(at)163(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19040: Memory leak in hashed subplan node due to missing hashtempcxt reset |
| Date: | 2025-09-08 20:46:10 |
| Message-ID: | 721997.1757364370@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
> I thought about that too, but that would result in two short-lived
> contexts and two reset operations per tuple cycle where only one
> is needed. I'm rather tempted to fix nodeSubplan.c by making it
> use innerecontext->ecxt_per_tuple_memory instead of a separate
> hash tmpcontext. That context is getting reset already, at least in
> buildSubPlanHash(). That's probably too risky for the back branches
> but we could do it in HEAD.
Concretely, I'm thinking about the attached. 0001 is the same
logic as in the v02 patch, but I felt we could make the code
be shorter and prettier instead of longer and uglier. That's
meant for back-patch, and then 0002 is for master only.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v04-0001-Fix-memory-leakage-in-nodeSubplan.c.patch | text/x-diff | 6.1 KB |
| v04-0002-Eliminate-duplicative-hashtempcxt-in-nodeSubplan.patch | text/x-diff | 3.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | 李海洋 (陌痕) | 2025-09-09 01:52:26 | 回复：BUG #19040: Memory leak in hashed subplan node due to missing hashtempcxt reset |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-08 17:23:12 | Re: BUG #19040: Memory leak in hashed subplan node due to missing hashtempcxt reset |