From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |
Date: | 2014-06-19 02:29:36 |
Message-ID: | 9063.1403144976@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I do see growth in the per-query context as well. I'm not sure
> where that's coming from, but we probably should try to find out.
> A couple hundred bytes per iteration is going to add up, even if it's
> not as fast as 8K per iteration. I'm not sure it's dblink's fault,
> because I don't see anything in dblink.c that is allocating anything in
> the per-query context, except for the returned tuplestores, which
> somebody else should clean up.
I poked at this example some more, and found that the additional memory
leak is occurring during evaluation of the arguments to be passed to
dblink(). There's been a comment there for a very long time suggesting
that we might need to do something about that ...
With the attached patch on top of yours, I see no leak anymore.
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
ExecMakeTableFunctionResult-mem-leak.patch | text/x-diff | 2.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2014-06-19 02:49:00 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |
Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2014-06-19 01:54:31 | Possible index issue on 9.5 slave |