Fwd: Per-tuple memory leak in 9.0

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Fwd: Per-tuple memory leak in 9.0
Date: 2010-08-18 17:47:45
Message-ID: AANLkTikcn82BNGRXO59krg=5=WpgYwe5OHBNc07xdQTq@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Sorry, I meant to cc this to -bugs as well as -hackers

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Date: 18 August 2010 18:29
Subject: Per-tuple memory leak in 9.0
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org

While testing triggers, I came across the following memory leak.
Here's a simple test case:

CREATE TABLE foo(a int);

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION trig_fn() RETURNS trigger AS
$$
BEGIN
 RETURN NEW;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;

CREATE TRIGGER ins_trig BEFORE INSERT ON foo
 FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE trig_fn();

INSERT INTO foo SELECT g
 FROM generate_series(1, 5000000) AS g;

Memory usage goes up by around 100 bytes per row for the duration of the query.

The problem is that the trigger code assumes that anything it
allocates in the per-tuple memory context will be freed per-tuple
processed, which used to be the case because the loop in ExecutePlan()
calls ResetPerTupleExprContext() once each time round the loop, and
that used to correspond to once per tuple.

However, with the refactoring of that code out to nodeModifyTable.c,
this is no longer the case because the ModifyTable node processes all
the tuples from the subquery before returning, so I guess that the
loop in ExecModifyTable() needs to call ResetPerTupleExprContext()
each time round.

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-08-18 20:52:46 Re: Per-tuple memory leak in 9.0
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-08-18 17:30:51 Re: BUG #5623: xml2 and uuid-ossp contribs fail to compile

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2010-08-18 17:55:58 Re: Per-column collation, proof of concept
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-08-18 17:31:18 Re: git: uh-oh