Re: failures on barnacle (CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY) because of memory leaks

Hi,

On 13.8.2014 19:17, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 13.8.2014 17:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> * I'm a bit dubious about testing -DRANDOMIZE_ALLOCATED_MEMORY in the
>> same build as -DCLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY, because each of these is
>> darned expensive and it's not clear you'd learn anything by running
>> them both together. I think you might be better advised to run two
>> separate buildfarm critters with those two options, and thereby perhaps
>> get turnaround in something less than 80 days.
>
> OK, I removed this for barnacle/addax/mite, let's see what's the impact.
>
> FWIW We have three other animals running with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS +
> RANDOMIZE_ALLOCATED_MEMORY, and it takes ~20h per branch. But maybe the
> price when combined with CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY is much higher.
>
>> * It'd likely be a good idea to take out the TestUpgrade and TestDecoding
>> modules from the config too. Otherwise, we won't be seeing barnacle's
>> next report before 2015, judging from the runtime of the check step
>> compared to some of the other slow buildfarm machines. (I wonder whether
>> there's an easy way to skip the installcheck step, as that's going to
>> require a much longer run than it can possibly be worth too.)
>
> OK, I did this too.
>
> I stopped the already running test on addax and started the test on
> barnacle again. Let's see in a few days/weeks/months what is the result.

It seems to be running much faster (probably after removing the
randomization), and apparently it passed the create_view tests without
crashing, but then crashed at 'constraints' (again, because of OOM).

PortalMemory: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 7880 free (0 chunks); 312 used
PortalHeapMemory: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 840 free (0 chunks); 184 used
ExecutorState: 769654952 total in 103 blocks; 114984 free (296
chunks); 769539968 used
ExprContext: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used

I suppose we don't expect 760MB ExecutorState here. Also, there's ~60MB
MessageContext.

It's still running, so I'm attaching the relevant part of log (again,
with MemoryContextStats for backends with VSS >= 512MB .

FWIW, it's running against a844c29966d7c0cd6a457e9324f175349bb12df0.

regards
Tomas