From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: valgrind on initdb |
Date: | 2018-11-07 14:37:37 |
Message-ID: | ee277558-d735-07bb-925c-944b97a1cb67@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/7/18 9:11 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On 11/7/18 2:47 PM, John Naylor wrote:
>> On 11/7/18, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While looking at [1] (included in 23315.log) there are other warnings as
>>> well.
>> Perhaps it's worth revisiting to make debugging easier, but right now
>> initdb.c has this comment:
>>
>> * Note:
>> * The program has some memory leakage - it isn't worth cleaning it up.
>>
> Maybe. I certainly don't think it's not worth the time merely for the
> sake of fixing the memory leaks. The reasoning here is that initdb runs
> for a short period of time (a couple of seconds, really), and the memory
> gets released when the process exits. And the leaks are tiny in general
> - a couple of bytes here and there. Had there been a massive memory leak
> that would change the equation of course.
>
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I wrote that comment 15 or so years ago in the
first C implementation of initdb. I don't think my opinion has changed
much. We're talking about kilobytes, here, nothing massive.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-07 14:45:53 | Re: Connection limit doesn't work for superuser |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-07 14:30:37 | Re: pread() and pwrite() |