| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias Otterbach <mo(at)otterbach(dot)eu>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage when selecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak) |
| Date: | 2019-03-18 22:03:40 |
| Message-ID: | 6061.1552946620@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> But are we actually prepared to assume that nothing ever leaks in
> receivers? That's, as far as I can tell, not a documented
> assumption.
There's a lot that's not documented there :-(
> 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. It's leaking in the executor's
context over repeat ExecutorRun cycles in the same execution state.
We do have an expectation that there won't be per-row leakage in
the ExecutorState.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomasz Szypowski | 2019-03-18 22:05:54 | Re: pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-18 22:00:31 | Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage when selecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak) |