From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16707: Memory leak
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 17:20:37 -0500
Message-ID: <2002012.1604960437@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201109220329.GC391173@roeckx.be>
References: <16707-f5df308978a55bf8@postgresql.org>
<1999972.1604957673@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20201109220329.GC391173@roeckx.be>
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 04:34:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * look in postmaster log for memory dump
> ...
> Grand total: 3575000 bytes in 533 blocks; 596232 free (450 chunks); 2978768 used
> Which was for this process:
> USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
> postgres 10000 2.6 16.3 5547172 5374656 ? Ss Nov08 54:10 postgres: synapse synapse [local] idle
Hm. It would seem that whatever you're leaking was not allocated via
palloc. Have you got any extensions loaded into that backend?
It's also worth noting that if you've got 4GB of shared buffers,
a total process vsize of 5.3GB doesn't seem all that far out of
line. I'm not quite convinced that you have a leak at all,
as opposed to processes gradually touching more and more of the
shared buffer arena.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, kurt@roeckx.be, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16707: Memory leak
In-Reply-To: <2002012.1604960437@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox