From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~) |
Date: | 2024-12-03 04:20:42 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KY5V7D593tAAdvEy=Dq81=egjum0zt5HyfK7iGYJqOuQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 2:12 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2024-Dec-02, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Even, if we want a new context for some localized handling, we should
> > add that in PGOutputData rather than a local context as the proposed
> > patch is doing at the very least for HEAD.
>
> I don't necessarily agree, given that this context is not needed
> anywhere else.
>
But that suits the current design more. We allocate PGOutputData and
other contexts in that structure in a "Logical decoding context". A
few of its members (publications, publication_names) residing in
totally unrelated contexts sounds odd. In the first place, we don't
need to allocate publications under CacheMemoryContext, they should be
allocated in PGOutputData->cachectx. However, because we need to free
those entirely at one-shot during invalidation processing, we could
use a new context as a child context of PGOutputData->cachectx. Unless
I am missing something, the current memory context usage appears more
like a coding convenience than a thoughtful design decision.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jian he | 2024-12-03 04:28:53 | Re: on_error table, saving error info to a table |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2024-12-03 04:12:35 | Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions |