From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias Otterbach <mo@otterbach.eu>
Cc: 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)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:57:10 -0700
Message-ID: <20190318215710.f6balpny456kink2@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13467.1552942521@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <15700-8c408321a87d56bb@postgresql.org>
<16717.1552926811@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4ef5f38d5710c4d5c289537c588c7335@otterbach.eu>
<CAMkU=1wW32K8n4ut_7zz+6HH1J068tFtpv5os=eeAgvjiQH8ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMkU=1x_XySqXZ-1gCyoaipKLzefQSr1BuaHL12vy_9WKFnjYQ@mail.gmail.com>
<13467.1552942521@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Hi,
On 2019-03-18 16:55:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> > The culprit is f2dec34e19d3969ddd6.
>
> Hmm. I bet problem is that the buf isn't being freed in
> printtup_shutdown.
That's indeed part of it, and there's very little reason (besides there
not being a convenient function for it, but it's obviously trivial to
open code) to not free it.
This specific issue can trivially resolved by adding something like
/* free memory allocated by initStringInfo */
if(myState->buf.data)
pfree(myState->buf.data);
myState->buf.data = NULL;
to printtup_shutdown(). I'm inclined to just leave it open coded for
now.
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.
What we're getting here is a stream of:
2019-03-18 14:47:46.159 PDT [30035][3/4] LOG: duration: 0.269 ms parse <unnamed>: SELECT b FROM public.a
2019-03-18 14:47:46.159 PDT [30035][3/4] LOG: duration: 0.235 ms bind <unnamed>/C_1: SELECT b FROM public.a
2019-03-18 14:47:50.705 PDT [30035][3/4] LOG: duration: 4545.495 ms execute <unnamed>/C_1: SELECT b FROM public.a
2019-03-18 14:48:01.126 PDT [30035][3/4] LOG: duration: 9613.291 ms execute fetch from <unnamed>/C_1: SELECT b FROM public.a
2019-03-18 14:48:06.488 PDT [30035][3/4] LOG: duration: 4564.857 ms execute fetch from <unnamed>/C_1: SELECT b FROM public.a
2019-03-18 14:48:11.700 PDT [30035][3/4] LOG: duration: 4449.060 ms execute fetch from <unnamed>/C_1: SELECT b FROM public.a
(ignore the timing, I had a debugger attached)
So we're assuming that all dest receivers never leak.
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.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
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: andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jeff.janes@gmail.com, mo@otterbach.eu, 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: <20190318215710.f6balpny456kink2@alap3.anarazel.de>
* 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