| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "jian(dot)long(at)i-soft(dot)com(dot)cn" <jian(dot)long(at)i-soft(dot)com(dot)cn>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48? |
| Date: | 2018-05-02 23:03:21 |
| Message-ID: | 11699.1525302201@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> With connection poolers letting the connections to the server be around
> for a long time, wouldn't it be an issue to let this much memory live
> longer than the transaction context? The deeper the stack, the more
> memory consumed, hence the more OS cache that PostgreSQL cannot use. So
> this could impact performance for some loads. I would vote for cleaning
> up this memory instead of letting it live unused in TopMemoryContext.
It's only ~100 bytes per stack level. I think under normal loads
nobody would notice. If you're worried about cross-transaction
memory consumption, our various caches tend to be a lot worse.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-05-02 23:06:24 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-05-02 22:51:15 | Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48? |