> These numbers don't even have any demonstrable connection to Postgres,
> let alone to an xpath-related memory leak. You're going to need to come
> up with a concrete test case if you want anyone to investigate.
>
> regards, tom lane
As I said in the start of this thread, this is all just a hunch, and the
graphs only show you the overall picture of this machine. However Postgres
is the only application running, and I can see on the box that all the
memory is being consumed by various postgres processes. In addition when
Postgres is restarted, all this memory is freed. Something changed in the
behavior of our database between running 8.1 and 8.3, and the most
significant change we made was the use of xpath() and the XML type.
My general question remains: should Postgres slowly be accumulating memory
like this, possibly up to the maximum amount of shared memory we've
allocated for it (4GB in this case)? If so then this memory trend isn't
something I should worry about.
-- m@
