Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage whenselecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak)
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage whenselecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190318222406.nlc6372xfou4kr5o@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage when selecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, On 2019-03-18 18:03:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > We're also assuming that we don't leak into MessageContext over such > > cycles, which seems wrong. At the very least things like > > errdetail_params() are happy to leak into MessageContext. > > This leak isn't in MessageContext; if it were, there likely wouldn't > have been a noticeable problem. I know that this leak wasn't into MessageContext - I was (wrongly) thinking that there also might be an issue related to MessageContext too, but I was wrong on that. > It's leaking in the executor's > context over repeat ExecutorRun cycles in the same execution state. What I don't quite get is why we're doing if (sendTuples) dest->rStartup(dest, operation, queryDesc->tupDesc); inside the per-query context, given that the lifetime of the started dest receiver can be, like in this example, be considerably shorter than the query execution. I guess given the current interface we can't really do much better, as we'd also not want to leak into the calling context, and allocating yet another memory context wouldn't be cheap :( Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: