| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthias Otterbach <mo(at)otterbach(dot)eu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage when selecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak) |
| Date: | 2019-03-18 20:53:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20190318205307.jvqlnsih2qbrkdus@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On 2019-03-18 16:44:02 -0400, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:50 PM Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doing that, I can reproduce the problem, and it seems to be using an
> > implicitly declared cursor (which I have not run into before).
> >
> >
> The culprit is f2dec34e19d3969ddd6. Also, it doesn't depend on bytea, it
> leaks for text as well.
>
> I looked at the patch and nothing in jumps out to me as causing a leak.
>
> commit f2dec34e19d3969ddd616e671fe9a7b968bec812
> Author: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
> Date: Wed Oct 11 16:26:35 2017 -0700
>
> Use one stringbuffer for all rows printed in printtup.c.
Thanks for figuring that out. On a quick scan I don't see anything
obvious. Let me try this out.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-18 20:55:21 | Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage when selecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2019-03-18 20:44:02 | Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage when selecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak) |