Re: [HACKERS] Temp Table Memory Leak

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Kristofer Munn <kmunn(at)munn(dot)com> writes:
> > > I've created a sample case that reproduces the error that I will attach
> > > with this message. Basically, I create a 50 column temp table (with no
> > > rows in it) and then run updates on each column in succession. The
> > > backend gets large pretty quick - I'm seeing about 12Megs after running
> > > the enclosed script which does an update on all 50 columns 3 times (150
> > > updates).
> >
> > I confirm the leak in 6.5.* --- but I see no leak in current sources.
>
> Great. Now the big question is should we backpatch, and if so do we
> want a 6.5.4. I know you(Tom) have put a number of patches into the
> 6.5.* branch, and we are at least 2 months away from our next release.
>
> Comments?

I'm all for it...I think that snce ppl have been consciously making an
effort to backpatch as appropriate (aren't CVS branches great? *grin*), we
should try and provide periodic releases, as appropriate ...

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org