| From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: possible memory leak with SRFs |
| Date: | 2010-05-07 06:14:26 |
| Message-ID: | u2ua301bfd91005062314hf9f3e13ew4911f08a9a53bcad@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
>> Can someone please explain why we do not reset the expression context
>> if an SRF is involved during execution?
>
> Consider
> srf(foo(col))
> where foo returns a pass-by-reference datatype. Your proposed patch
> would cut the knees out from under argument values that the SRF could
> reasonably expect to still be there on subsequent calls.
>
Yeah this is my basic confusion. But wouldn't the arguments be
evaluated afresh on the subsequent call for this SRF? In that case
freeing up the context of the *last* call should not be an issue I
would think.
And if this is indeed the case we should be using a different longer
lived context and not the ecxt_per_tuple_memory context..
Regards,
Nikhils
--
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-07 08:51:01 | Re: SQLSTATE for Hot Standby cancellation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-07 03:24:51 | Re: including PID or backend ID in relpath of temp rels |