Re: Memory-leak in BackgroundWriter(and Checkpointer)

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Naoya Anzai <anzai-naoya(at)mxu(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Akio Iwaasa <iwaasa(at)mxs(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: Memory-leak in BackgroundWriter(and Checkpointer)
Date: 2013-06-04 12:27:36
Message-ID: 20130604122736.GH5871@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

* Naoya Anzai (anzai-naoya(at)mxu(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp) wrote:
> I've found a memory-leak bug in PostgreSQL 9.1.9's background
> writer process.

This looks legit, but probably not the right approach to fixing it.
Looks like it'd be better to work out a way to use a static variable to
reuse the same memory, ala what GetRunningTransactionData() does, and
avoid having to do allocation while holding all the locks (or at least,
not very often).

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Federico Campoli 2013-06-04 12:57:58 Re: BUG #8192: On very large tables the concurrent update with vacuum lag the hot_standby replica
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2013-06-04 10:35:05 Re: BUG #8198: ROW() literals not supported in an IN clause