Re: memory leak in trigger handling (since PG12)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: memory leak in trigger handling (since PG12)
Дата
Msg-id 960113.1684859980@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на memory leak in trigger handling (since PG12)  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: memory leak in trigger handling (since PG12)  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> it seems there's a fairly annoying memory leak in trigger code,
> introduced by
> ...
> Attached is a patch, restoring the pre-12 behavior for me.

> While looking for other places allocating stuff in ExecutorState (for
> the UPDATE case) and leaving it there, I found two more cases:

> 1) copy_plpgsql_datums

> 2) make_expanded_record_from_tupdesc
>    make_expanded_record_from_exprecord

> All of this is calls from plpgsql_exec_trigger.

Not sure about the expanded-record case, but both of your other two
fixes feel like poor substitutes for pushing the memory into a
shorter-lived context.  In particular I'm quite surprised that
plpgsql isn't already allocating that workspace in the "procedure"
memory context.

> I wonder how much we should care about these cases. On the one hand we
> often leave the cleanup up to the memory context, but the assumption is
> the context is not unnecessarily long-lived. And ExecutorState is not
> that. And leaking memory per-row does not seem great either.

I agree per-row leaks in the ExecutorState context are not cool.

            regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: RFI: Extending the TOAST Pointer
Следующее
От: Markus Winand
Дата:
Сообщение: Wrong command name in writeable-CTE related error messages