Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lZCtM-00022N-U5 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:27:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lZCsq-0004L6-4o for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:27:12 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lZCsp-0004Kf-VA for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:27:11 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lZCsn-0006SA-5a for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:27:11 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 13LDR6Tt755578; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:27:06 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: RekGRpth cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #16974: memory leak In-reply-to: References: <16974-4f1a4803e727c3cf@postgresql.org> <523763.1618929168@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to RekGRpth message dated "Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:05:11 +0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <755576.1619011626.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:27:06 -0400 Message-ID: <755577.1619011626@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk RekGRpth writes: > The backend's "SHR" memory size increase from ~20Mb on startup to > ~150Mb by one day (with inserts and updates into table) As I said, that proves little and indeed is expected ... especially if your shared_buffers setting is around that. There's no leak unless you see VIRT increasing significantly. regards, tom lane