On 04.06.2013 15:27, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Naoya Anzai (anzai-naoya@mxu.nes.nec.co.jp) wrote:
>> I've found a memory-leak bug in PostgreSQL 9.1.9's background
>> writer process.
>
> This looks legit, but probably not the right approach to fixing it.
> Looks like it'd be better to work out a way to use a static variable to
> reuse the same memory, ala what GetRunningTransactionData() does, and
> avoid having to do allocation while holding all the locks (or at least,
> not very often).
I can't get too excited about the overhead of a single palloc here. It's
a fairly heavy operation anyway, and only runs once per checkpoint. And
we haven't heard any actual complaints of latency hiccups with
wal_level=hot_standby.
- Heikki
