| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Memory leak in incremental sort re-scan |
| Date: | 2023-07-02 18:13:41 |
| Message-ID: | 53b1274b-454e-6c89-1864-0df6ead5af1b@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/29/23 13:49, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 00:34 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 6/15/23 22:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>>> On 6/15/23 22:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> I see zero leakage in that example after applying the attached quick
>>>>> hack. (It might be better to make the check in the caller, or to just
>>>>> move the call to ExecInitIncrementalSort.)
>>>
>>>> Thanks for looking. Are you planning to work on this and push the fix,
>>>> or do you want me to finish this up?
>>>
>>> I'm happy to let you take it -- got lots of other stuff on my plate.
>>
>> OK, will do.
>
> It would be cool if we could get that into the next minor release in August.
>
FWIW I've pushed the fix prepared by James a couple days ago. Thanks for
the report!
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-07-02 18:31:56 | Optionally using a better backtrace library? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-07-02 18:12:42 | Re: possible bug in handling of contrecords in dd38ff28ad (Fix recovery_prefetch with low maintenance_io_concurrency) |