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:
Is the following known behaviour, or should I put some time in writing a
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?
It sounds like a bug to me, although I can't claim to know everything
there is to know about this topic.

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.

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:

Previous
From: Yeb Havinga
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible memory leak with SQL function?
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: record identical operator