| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: crash in plancache with subtransactions |
| Date: | 2010-10-29 15:54:52 |
| Message-ID: | 2717.1288367692@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi oct 27 18:18:06 -0300 2010:
>> I spent quite a bit of time trying to deal with the memory-leakage
>> problem without adding still more bookkeeping overhead. It wasn't
>> looking good, and then I had a sudden insight: if we see that the in-use
>> flag is set, we can simply return FALSE from exec_eval_simple_expr.
> I tried the original test cases that were handed to me (quite different
> from what I submitted here) and they are fixed also. Thanks.
It'd be interesting to know if there's any noticeable slowdown on
affected real-world cases. (Of course, if they invariably crashed
before, there might not be a way to measure their previous speed...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2010-10-29 16:25:03 | [PATCH] Cleanup: Compare pointers to NULL instead of 0 |
| Previous Message | Leonardo Francalanci | 2010-10-29 15:41:18 | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |