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
In-reply-to: <20201109220329.GC391173@roeckx.be>
References: <16707-f5df308978a55bf8@postgresql.org>
 <1999972.1604957673@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20201109220329.GC391173@roeckx.be>
Comments: In-reply-to Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
	message dated "Mon, 09 Nov 2020 23:03:29 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2002011.1604960437.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 17:20:37 -0500
Message-ID: <2002012.1604960437@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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); 2978=
768 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 postgre=
s: 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