| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ian Harding <ianh(at)tpchd(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Memory Errors... |
| Date: | 2002-09-19 17:41:20 |
| Message-ID: | 3D8A0C40.9060700@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I said:
>
>>Yeah, I see very quick memory exhaustion also :-(. Looks like the
>>spi_exec call is the culprit, but I'm not sure exactly why ...
>>anyone have time to look at this?
>
>
> On looking a little more closely, it's clear that pltcl_SPI_exec()
> should be, and is not, calling SPI_freetuptable() once it's done with
> the tuple table returned by SPI_exec(). This needs to be done in all
> the non-elog code paths after SPI_exec has returned SPI_OK_SELECT.
> pltcl_SPI_execp() has a similar problem, and there may be comparable
> bugs in other pltcl routines (not to mention other sources of memory
> leaks, but I think this is the problem for your example).
>
> I have no time to work on this right now; any volunteers out there?
>
I can give it a shot, but probably not until the weekend.
I haven't really followed this thread closely, and don't know tcl very well,
so it would help if someone can send me a minimal tcl function which triggers
the problem.
Thanks,
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-09-19 17:53:28 | Re: unaccent |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-19 16:52:39 | Re: [GENERAL] Memory Errors... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-19 18:06:05 | Re: DROP COLUMN misbehaviour with multiple inheritance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-19 16:52:39 | Re: [GENERAL] Memory Errors... |