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

Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> writes:
> Regarding those leaks we've detected so far - is it the kind of leaks
> that can happen only in testing with those specific flags, or is it
> something that can happen in production too? (Assuming no one is running
> with CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY in production, of course ;-) That is,
> does it seem worth the effort running those tests / fixing those leaks?

I believe most or all of these leaks were understood and intentionally
ignored in the original coding, on the grounds that they were intraquery
leaks and no real-world situation would ever cause so many cache reloads
in a single query that the leakage would amount to anything problematic.
I think that reasoning is still valid for production usage. It seems
worth fixing the leaks in HEAD so that we can get through the regression
tests on barnacle and see if anything of greater significance turns up ---
but if this is all we find, it might not have been worth the trouble.

regards, tom lane