| From: | "Vadim B(dot) Mikheev" <vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Maurice Gittens <mgittens(at)gits(dot)nl>, Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it>, Pgsql Development <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, David Gould <dg(at)illustra(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Everything leaks; How it mm suppose to work? |
| Date: | 1998-04-09 14:55:05 |
| Message-ID: | 352CE149.4756A8D9@sable.krasnoyarsk.su |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
>
> > >Does it make sense to have a 'row' context which is released just
> > >before starting with a new tuple ? The total number or free is the
> > >same but they are distributed over the query and unused memory should
> > >not accumulate.
> > >I have seen backends growing to 40-60MB with queries which scan a
> > >very large number of rows.
> > I think this would be appropiate.
>
> It seems that the CPU overhead on all queries would increase trying to
> deallocate/reuse memory during the query. There are lots of places in
> the backend where memory is palloc'd and then left lying around after
> use; I had assumed it was sort-of-intentional to avoid having extra
> cleanup overhead during a query.
This problem (introduced in 6.3) is already fixed by Bruce - will be
in 6.3.2
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-04-09 14:59:09 | Release notes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-04-09 14:39:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Data types |