On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:40 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think we can just back-patch that part of code as it is linked
> to the way we are maintaining a cache (~8MB) for frequently allocated
> objects. See the comments around the definition of
> max_cached_tuplebufs. But probably, we can do something once we reach
> such a limit, basically, once we know that we have already allocated
> max_cached_tuplebufs number of tuples of size MaxHeapTupleSize, we
> don't need to allocate more of that size. Does this make sense?
>
Yeah, this makes sense. I've attached a patch that implements the
same. It solves the problem reported earlier. This solution will at
least slow down the process of going OOM even for very small sized
tuples.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
