From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: memory leak regression 9.1 versus 8.1 |
Date: | 2012-05-10 02:36:01 |
Message-ID: | 4FAB2991.7050409@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/09/2012 05:06 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> OK, new script. This more faithfully represents the real life scenario,
> and reproduces the issue on HEAD with out-of-the-box config settings,
> versus 8.1 which completes the query having never exceeded a very modest
> memory usage:
>
> ---------------
> On pg 8.1 with out of the box config:
> VIRT RES SHR
> 199m 11m 3032
> ---------------
> On pg head with out of the box config:
> VIRT RES SHR
> 1671m 1.5g 16m
> ---------------
The attached one-liner seems to plug up the majority (although not quite
all) of the leakage.
do_convert_tuple() is allocating a new tuple for every row in the loop
and exec_stmt_return_next() is leaking it.
The query now finishes successfully. On pg head with attached patch and
out of the box config:
VIRT RES SHR
196m 35m 31m
This look sane/correct?
Joe
--
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source
Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
memory-leak.001.diff | text/x-patch | 420 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-05-10 03:07:52 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-05-10 01:03:53 | Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write |