On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I said:
> >
> >>Yeah, I see very quick memory exhaustion also :-(. Looks like the
> >>spi_exec call is the culprit, but I'm not sure exactly why ...
> >>anyone have time to look at this?
> >
> >
> > On looking a little more closely, it's clear that pltcl_SPI_exec()
> > should be, and is not, calling SPI_freetuptable() once it's done with
> > the tuple table returned by SPI_exec(). This needs to be done in all
> > the non-elog code paths after SPI_exec has returned SPI_OK_SELECT.
> > pltcl_SPI_execp() has a similar problem, and there may be comparable
> > bugs in other pltcl routines (not to mention other sources of memory
> > leaks, but I think this is the problem for your example).
> >
> > I have no time to work on this right now; any volunteers out there?
> >
>
> I can give it a shot, but probably not until the weekend.
>
> I haven't really followed this thread closely, and don't know tcl very well,
> so it would help if someone can send me a minimal tcl function which triggers
> the problem.
I can probably take a look at this tomorrow, already started by looking at the
pltcl_SPI_exec routine. I think a quick glance at ...init_unknown() also shows
a lack of tuptable freeing.
--
Nigel J. Andrews
