On 07/27/2012 01:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au> writes:
>> OK, it's certainly leaking, but not in the same drastic way I was able
>> to reproduce manually a couple of times earlier. Self-contained test
>> case attached.
> Using HEAD with stock parameters, I don't see any significant change in
> allocated address space (VSZ): it sits right around 170MB. The reported
> resident set size (RSS) starts from very little and rises to about
> 140MB, but I think that's just an artifact of the process touching more
> and more of the shared-buffers array as it runs.
Gah. I should know better than that. Sorry.
This makes me wonder if the "leak-like" pattern I saw earlier was just a
similar growth in shared_buffers, and carried on more steeply rather
than tapering off because I was working with a smaller data set.
--
Craig Ringer
