From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plan cache overhead on plpgsql expression |
Date: | 2020-03-19 11:19:10 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBjoMfioYyQQN9NovvHG03ZFqQkdEuL1NgdVVSOZgkaog@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
čt 19. 3. 2020 v 10:47 odesílatel Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Sorry it took me a while to look at this.
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 4:28 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > po 24. 2. 2020 v 18:56 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> napsal:
> >> But I found one issue - I don't know if this issue is related to your
> patch or plpgsql_check.
> >>
> >> plpgsql_check try to clean after it was executed - it cleans all plans.
> But some pointers on simple expressions are broken after catched exceptions.
> >>
> >> expr->plan = 0x80. Is interesting, so other fields of this expressions
> are correct.
> >
> > I am not sure, but after patching the SPI_prepare_params the current
> memory context is some short memory context.
> >
> > Can SPI_prepare_params change current memory context? It did before. But
> after patching different memory context is active.
>
> I haven't been able to see the behavior you reported. Could you let
> me know what unexpected memory context you see in the problematic
>
case?
>
How I can detect it? Are there some steps for debugging memory context?
Pavel
>
> --
> Thank you,
> Amit
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-03-19 11:30:04 | Re: shared-memory based stats collector |
Previous Message | Sandeep Thakkar | 2020-03-19 11:16:47 | Re: PG v12.2 - Setting jit_above_cost is causing the server to crash |