From: | Carl Sopchak <carl(dot)sopchak(at)cegis123(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Newbie questions relating to transactions |
Date: | 2009-03-08 23:40:52 |
Message-ID: | 200903081940.52210.carl.sopchak@cegis123.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sunday, March 08, 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
> Carl Sopchak <carl(dot)sopchak(at)cegis123(dot)com> writes:
> > Here's what's around the error message in the log:
> >
> > SPI Proc: 3154128080 total in 398 blocks; 13664 free (178 chunks);
> > 3154114416 used
>
> Hmm, so apparently some internal leak within the plpgsql engine. I'd be
> willing to look into this if you can provide a self-contained test case.
> (I don't wish to spend time trying to reverse engineer suitable tables
> and data from the fragmentary function you posted, even assuming that it
> would show the leak ...)
>
> regards, tom lane
Yeah, those numbers looked pretty big to me, too... (Even though I didn't
really know what they mean...)
I'll try to put together a test case, but don't hold your breath. I'm kinda
under a deadline on the project I'm working on, and this is a side track at
best. There are other ways for me to work around this (client side script or
changing the function to do partial runs at a time) that will get me to where
I need to be. On the other hand, I like to help solve these types of things,
so I should get around to it eventually...
Thanks for your help.
Carl
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2009-03-08 23:49:58 | Re: Enable user access from remote host |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-08 23:32:52 | Re: Enable user access from remote host |