On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:09:46PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of mar dic 13 11:44:49 -0300 2011:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 05:20:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of dom dic 04 09:20:27 -0300 2011:
> > >
> > > > Second, I tried a SELECT FOR SHARE on a table of 1M tuples; this might incur
> > > > some cost due to the now-guaranteed use of pg_multixact for FOR SHARE. See
> > > > attached fklock-test-forshare.sql. The median run slowed by 7% under the
> > > > patch, albeit with a rather brief benchmark run. Both master and patched
> > > > PostgreSQL seemed to exhibit a statement-scope memory leak in this test case:
> > > > to lock 1M rows, backend-private memory grew by about 500M. When trying 10M
> > > > rows, I cancelled the query after 1.2 GiB of consumption. This limited the
> > > > duration of a convenient test run.
> > >
> > > I found that this is caused by mxid_to_string being leaked all over the
> > > place :-( I "fixed" it by making the returned string be a static that's
> > > malloced and then freed on the next call. There's still virtsize growth
> > > (not sure it's a legitimate leak) with that, but it's much smaller.
> >
> > Great. I'll retry that benchmark with the next patch version. I no longer
> > see a leak on master, so I probably messed up that part of the test somehow.
>
> Maybe you recompiled without the MULTIXACT_DEBUG symbol defined?
Neither my brain nor my shell history recall that, but it remains possible.
> > By the way, do you have a rapid procedure for finding the call site behind a
> > leak like this?
>
> Not really ... I tried some games with GDB (which yielded the first
> report: I did some "call MemoryContextStats(TopMemoryContext)" to see
> where the bloat was, and then stepped with breaks on MemoryContextAlloc,
> also with a watch on CurrentMemoryContext and noting when it was
> pointing to the bloated context. But since I'm a rookie with GDB I
> didn't find a way to only break when MemoryContextAlloc was pointing at
> that context. I know there must be a way.) and then went to do some
> code inspection instead. I gather some people use valgrind
> successfully.
Understood. Incidentally, the GDB command in question is "condition".
> > > + if (str != NULL)
> > > + free(str);
> > > +
> > > + str = malloc(15 * (nmembers + 1) + 4);
> >
> > Need a check for NULL return.
>
> Yeah, thanks ... I changed it to MemoryContextAlloc(TopMemoryContext),
> because I'm not sure that a combination of malloc plus palloc would end
> up in extra memory fragmentation.
Sounds good.
