| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "jian(dot)long(at)i-soft(dot)com(dot)cn" <jian(dot)long(at)i-soft(dot)com(dot)cn>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48? |
| Date: | 2018-05-02 16:14:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4ab2aa26-5166-1a35-b89b-c5d73bf565b9@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/1/18 11:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> The memory leak can be fixed by adding a pfree().
>
> That seems like an odd way to approach this. Why not just remove the
> reset of _SPI_stack and _SPI_stack_depth, so as to subtract code rather
> than adding it --- that is, make it actually work like you mistakenly
> thought it did? If we're going to keep the stack in TopMemoryContext,
> there's no need to thrash it on every transaction.
Yes, that seems attractive.
Are we concerned about the case where someone runs a very deeply nested
SPI setup once in a session, creating a large stack allocation, which
then persists for the rest of the session?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-05-02 16:26:31 | Re: doc fixes: vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-05-02 16:14:33 | Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem |