Re: Possible memory leak with SQL function? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Greg Stark |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Possible memory leak with SQL function? |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAM-w4HMNT3X+rebZX0Tm155zdL1bhYZOdRNwt_Vo7g68RUdFuA@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: Possible memory leak with SQL function? (Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>) |
| List | pgsql-hackers |
Noah, this is the kind of memory leak I was referring to which would be nice if valgrind could help with. I'm not sure exactly what that would look like though, I've never tried writing support code for valgrind to deal with custom allocators.
--
greg
On 16 Sep 2013 15:38, "Yeb Havinga" <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-09-13 18:32, Robert Haas wrote:On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote:I spent some time writing a test case, but failed to make a test case that showed the memory difference I described upthread, in contrast, in the test below, the SQL function actually shows a smaller memory footprint than the plpgsql counterpart. This test case only demonstrates that in a long running transaction, calling sql or plpgsql functions causes increasing memory usage that is not released until after commit.Is the following known behaviour, or should I put some time in writing aIt sounds like a bug to me, although I can't claim to know everything
self contained test case?
We have a function that takes a value and returns a ROW type. With the
function implemented in language SQL, when executing this function in a
large transaction, memory usage of the backend process increases.
MemoryContextStats showed a lot of SQL function data. Debugging
init_sql_fcache() showed that it was for the same function oid each time,
and the oid was the function from value to ROW type.
When the function is implemented in PL/pgSQL, the memory usage was much
less.
I'm sorry I cannot be more specific at the moment, such as what is 'much
less' memory with a PL/pgSQl function, and are there as many SQL function
data's as calls to the SQL function, because I would have to write a test
case for this. I was just wondering, if this is known behavior of SQL
functions vs PL/pgSQL functions, or could it be a bug?
there is to know about this topic.
callit.sql:
----------
DO
$$
DECLARE b text;
i int;
BEGIN
-- SELECT 'a' into b; -- memory constant
i := fp('a'); -- memory increases
-- i := fs('a'); -- memory increases but slow
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
-------------
sqlvsplpgsql.sql:
-------------
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION fp (a text)
RETURNS int
AS $$
DECLARE result int;
BEGIN
SELECT 10 INTO result;
RETURN result;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION fs (a text)
RETURNS int
AS $$
SELECT 10;
$$
LANGUAGE sql;
\i callit.sql
-------------
rm /tmp/ff /tmp/ff2 ; cp callit.sql /tmp/ff ; cat /tmp/ff /tmp/ff >> /tmp/ff2; cat /tmp/ff2 /tmp/ff2 >> /tmp/ff; cat /tmp/ff /tmp/ff >> /tmp/ff2; cat /tmp/ff2 /tmp/ff2 >> /tmp/ff;cat /tmp/ff /tmp/ff >> /tmp/ff2; cat /tmp/ff2 /tmp/ff2 >> /tmp/ff;cat /tmp/ff /tmp/ff >> /tmp/ff2; cat /tmp/ff2 /tmp/ff2 >> /tmp/ff;cat /tmp/ff /tmp/ff >> /tmp/ff2; cat /tmp/ff2 /tmp/ff2 >> /tmp/ff;cat /tmp/ff /tmp/ff >> /tmp/ff2; cat /tmp/ff2 /tmp/ff2 >> /tmp/ff;cat /tmp/ff /tmp/ff >> /tmp/ff2; cat /tmp/ff2 /tmp/ff2 >> /tmp/ff
psql -1 postgres -f /tmp/ff
Then watch htop in another terminal.
--
Yeb Havinga
http://www.mgrid.net/
Mastering Medical Data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
pgsql-hackers by date: