From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Memory leak in vac_update_relstats ? |
Date: | 2007-07-20 20:24:01 |
Message-ID: | 14989.1184963041@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> It seems like the impact of this is self-limiting though. The worst-case is
> going to be something which executes an extra pfree for every tuple. Or
> perhaps one for every expression in a complex query involving lots of
> expressions. Saving a few extra pfrees per tuple isn't really going to buy
> many cpu cycles.
I can't tell you how many profiles I've looked at in which palloc/pfree
were *the* dominant consumers of CPU cycles. I'm not sure how much
could be saved this particular way, but I wouldn't dismiss it as
uninteresting. I've actually thought about making short-term memory
contexts use a variant MemoryContext type in which pfree was a no-op and
palloc was simplified by not worrying at all about recycling space.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-07-20 20:33:58 | Re: Memory leak in vac_update_relstats ? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-20 20:05:39 | Re: 8.2.4 signal 11 with large transaction |