From: "Jeff Janes" <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM, MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Really? Would the catcache be polluted with entries for nonexistent
>> tables? I'm surprised at this. I don't think it is necessary to speed up
>> the query that fails with nonexistent tables, because such queries should
>> be eliminated during application development.
>
>
> I was thinking the same thing, optimizing for failure is nice if there are
> no tradeoffs, but not so nice if it leaks memory. But apparently the
> negative cache was added for real reasons, not just theory. See
> discussion
> from when it was added:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19585.1012350724@sss.pgh.pa.us
Thanks for the info. I (probably) understood why negative catcache entries
are necessary.
> Hmm. I could repeat this, and it seems that the catcache for
> pg_statistic accumulates negative cache entries. Those slowly take up
> the memory.
>
> Seems that we should somehow flush those, when the table is dropped. Not
> sure how, but I'll take a look.
As Heikki san said as above, there should be something wrong somewhere,
shouldn't there? In my testing, just repeating CREATE (TEMPORARY) TABLE,
SELECT against it, and DROP TABLE on it led to more than 400MB of
CacheMemoryContext, after which I stopped the test. It seems that the
catcache grows without bounds simply by repeating simple transactions.
I wish to know the conditions where this happens and take all workarounds in
my application to avoid the problem. Cooperation would be much appreciated.
Regards
MauMau
