Re: Server closed the connection unexpectedly (memory leak)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Server closed the connection unexpectedly (memory leak) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 229225.1687625766@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Server closed the connection unexpectedly (memory leak) (Zu-Ming Jiang <zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch>) |
Ответы |
Re: Server closed the connection unexpectedly (memory leak)
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Zu-Ming Jiang <zuming.jiang@inf.ethz.ch> writes: > My fuzzer finds a bug in Postgres, which makes the connection closed > unexpectedly. TBH, I think there's not much to be learned here, beyond "a ridiculously complicated query takes a ridiculous amount of memory to plan". The reason for the backend crash is presumably that the OOM killer decided to zap it. If you run the postmaster under a "ulimit -v" setting that's small enough to act before the OOM killer does, then you get an unexciting "out of memory" error. I did find that if you mark cte_3 as MATERIALIZED, the resource consumption is a lot less --- but you get a plan that requires 41191 lines to EXPLAIN, so it's still way outside any bounds of reasonability. Perhaps there's room there to argue that we shouldn't flatten CTE subqueries that are "too big" ... but it's hard to decide how to measure "too big". regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: