| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2018-05-03 00:11:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20180503001122.GA18801@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:03:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Perhaps, that's one reason why people drop connections from time to time
to the server even with a custom pooler. I am wondering if we are going
to have complains about "performance regressions" found after upgrading
to Postgres 11 for deployments which rely on complicated PL call stacks,
or complains about the OOM killer though. Getting to review large
procedures stacks can be a pain for application developers.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-03 00:24:38 | Re: Unportable code in autoprewarm.c |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-05-03 00:03:22 | Re: A few warnings on Windows |