| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |
| Date: | 2014-06-19 15:50:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20140619155035.GP18688@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/18/2014 08:50 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> > On 06/18/2014 08:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, we usually think memory leaks are back-patchable bugs. I'm
> >> a bit worried about the potential performance impact of an extra
> >> memory context creation/deletion though. It's probably not
> >> noticeable in this test case, but that's just because dblink()
> >> is such a spectacularly expensive function.
> >
> > Probably so. I'll try to scrounge up some time to test the
> > performance impact of your patch.
>
> Not the most scientific of tests, but I think a reasonable one:
Is this an assert-enabled build?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2014-06-19 15:53:17 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-06-19 15:42:01 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |