Received: from job.gits.nl (job.gits.nl [194.178.243.251]) by hub.org
	(8.8.8/8.7.5) with ESMTP id HAA13814 for
	<hackers@postgreSQL.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 07:02:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from caleb..gits.nl (caleb.gits.nl [194.178.243.252])
	by job.gits.nl (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA10076;
	Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:11:43 -0400
Message-ID: <00d901bd63a6$a9bd0520$fcf3b2c2@caleb..gits.nl>
From: "Maurice Gittens" <mgittens@gits.nl>
To: "Massimo Dal Zotto" <dz@cs.unitn.it>,
	"Pgsql Development" <hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Cc: "David Gould" <dg@illustra.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Everything leaks; How it mm suppose to work?
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:00:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4

>> 
>
>Does it make sense to have a 'row' context which is released just before
>starting with a new tuple ? The total number or free is the same but they
>are distributed over the query and unused memory should not accumulate.
>I have seen backends growing to 40-60MB with queries which scan a very
>large number of rows.
>


I think this would be appropiate.

With regards from Maurice.