Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink
Date: 2014-06-19 16:18:22
Message-ID: 1913.1403194702@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> Probably so. I'll try to scrounge up some time to test the
>> performance impact of your patch.

> Not the most scientific of tests, but I think a reasonable one:
> ...
> 2.7% performance penalty

Thanks. While that's not awful, it's enough to be annoying.

I think we could mitigate this by allocating the argument context once in
nodeFunctionscan setup, and passing it into ExecMakeTableFunctionResult;
so we'd only do a memory context reset not a create/delete in each cycle.
That would make the patch a bit more invasive, but not much.

Back-patchability would depend on whether you think there's any third
party code calling ExecMakeTableFunctionResult; I kinda doubt that,
but I wonder if anyone has a different opinion.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vik Fearing 2014-06-19 16:22:49 Re: change alter user to be a true alias for alter role
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-06-19 16:17:55 Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures