| 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 20:55:33 |
| Message-ID: | 9114ae0b-80f1-3afa-3a8f-710393738532@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/2/18 12:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not particularly. It seems impossible that _SPI_stack could grow
> faster than the machine's actual stack, which would mean (on typical
> setups) that you couldn't get more than perhaps 10MB of _SPI_stack
> before hitting a stack-overflow error. That's a lot by some measures,
> but I don't think it's enough to cripple anything if we don't free it.
>
> Also, if someone is routinely using pretty deep SPI nesting, they'd
> probably be happier that we do keep the stack rather than repeatedly
> creating and enlarging it.
Yes, that was the idea. Here is an adjusted patch.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Fix-SPI-error-cleanup-and-memory-leak.patch | text/plain | 3.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-05-02 21:03:15 | Re: A few warnings on Windows |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-02 20:01:53 | Re: A few warnings on Windows |