From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Memory leaks in record_out and record_send |
Date: | 2012-11-13 16:52:17 |
Message-ID: | 20478.1352825537@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I think explicit calls like that actually wouldn't be a problem,
>> since they'd be run in a per-tuple context anyway. The cases that
>> are problematic are hard-coded I/O function calls. I'm worried
>> about the ones like, say, plpgsql's built-in conversion operations.
>> We could probably fix printtup's usage with some confidence, but
>> there are a lot of other ones.
> That's a good reason to get them into a shorter memory context, but
> which? per transaction maybe? shorter?
It would have to be per-tuple to do any good. The existing behavior
is per-query and causes problems if lots of rows are output. In plpgsql
it would be a function-call-lifespan leak.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-13 17:17:50 | Re: BUG #7656: PL/Perl SPI_freetuptable() segfault |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-11-13 16:46:40 | Re: [PATCH] Patch to compute Max LSN of Data Pages |