On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:43 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2024, at 02:53, Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 9:03 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se <mailto:daniel@yesql.se>> wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2024, at 07:24, Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com <mailto:wolakk@gmail.com>> wrote: >... > Okay, I took the latest source off of git (17devel) and got it to work there in a VM. > > It appears this issue is fixed. It must have been related to the issue originally tagged.
Thanks for testing and confirming! Testing pre-release builds on real life workloads is invaluable for the development of Postgres so thank you taking the time.
Daniel,
I did a little more checking and the reason I did not see the link MIGHT be because EXPLAIN did not show a JIT attempt. I tried to use settings that FORCE a JIT... But to no avail.
I am now concerned that the problem is more hidden in my use case. Meaning I CANNOT conclude it is fixed.
But I know of NO WAY to force a JIT (I lowered costs to 1, etc. ).
You don't know a way to force at least the JIT analysis to happen? (because I already knew if JIT was off, the leak wouldn't happen).
Thanks,
Kirk Out! PS: I assume there is no pg_jit(1) function I can call. LOL