Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h5ygn-0003sB-2e for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:16:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h5ygl-0008Nb-KA for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:16:51 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h5ygl-0008NU-Ai for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:16:51 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h5ygj-0006sc-18 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:16:50 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x2IKGlhI012021; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:16:47 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Jeff Janes cc: Matthias Otterbach , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage when selecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak) In-reply-to: References: <15700-8c408321a87d56bb@postgresql.org> <16717.1552926811@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4ef5f38d5710c4d5c289537c588c7335@otterbach.eu> Comments: In-reply-to Jeff Janes message dated "Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:50:43 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <12019.1552940207.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:16:47 -0400 Message-ID: <12020.1552940207@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Jeff Janes writes: > Doing that, I can reproduce the problem, and it seems to be using an > implicitly declared cursor (which I have not run into before). Hm, I'd tried a manually declared cursor w/ FETCH commands, but apparently this way is different. Thanks for the confirmation. regards, tom lane