Thread: ERROR [HY000] Out of memory while reading tuples.
Dear all,
When reading via the 8.00.01.02 odbc driver I get the error: ERROR [HY000] Out of memory while reading tuples.
The strange thing is, I have plenty of memory space left and it only happens when I request data in a certain order.
Can anyone perhaps shed some light on this problem?
With kind regards,
Paul
Hi Dave, I just thought that we have some kind of problem with memory allocation in bind.c (line 210 -230?). Maybe that one below is linked to it. Seems that declare/fetch allocates to much memory and crashes. Only strange thing is Anoop didn't change anything there. Unfortunately I don't know anything about the libpq internals. regards Johann Leendert Paul Diterwich: > Dear all, > > > > When reading via the 8.00.01.02 odbc driver I get the error: ERROR > [HY000] Out of memory while reading tuples. > > The strange thing is, I have plenty of memory space left and it only > happens when I request data in a certain order. > > Can anyone perhaps shed some light on this problem? > > > > With kind regards, > > > > Paul >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Johann Zuschlag [mailto:zuschlag2@online.de] > Sent: 02 November 2005 15:09 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [ODBC] ERROR [HY000] Out of memory while reading tuples. > > Hi Dave, > > I just thought that we have some kind of problem with memory > allocation > in bind.c (line 210 -230?). Maybe that one below is linked to > it. Seems > that declare/fetch allocates to much memory and crashes. Only strange > thing is Anoop didn't change anything there. Unfortunately I > don't know > anything about the libpq internals. > Well, do you see the same issue with 08.01.0005 Paul? 08.00.0102 is very different from what we have now. Regards, Dave
I took the 08.01.0005 driver and set my connection string to utilize the Unicode driver. This seems to work like a charm. I got an Accessviolation in the first 10 sec of testing though. But I'm unable to replicate it, by clicking like a delirious user (trigger a lot of data traffic). So everything seem to work fine for now. I will keep you posted if I get other error messages!
Dave Page: > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Johann Zuschlag [mailto:zuschlag2@online.de] >>Sent: 02 November 2005 15:09 >>To: Dave Page >>Cc: pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org >>Subject: Re: [ODBC] ERROR [HY000] Out of memory while reading tuples. >> >>Hi Dave, >> >>I just thought that we have some kind of problem with memory >>allocation >>in bind.c (line 210 -230?). Maybe that one below is linked to >>it. Seems >>that declare/fetch allocates to much memory and crashes. Only strange >>thing is Anoop didn't change anything there. Unfortunately I >>don't know >>anything about the libpq internals. >> >> >> > >Well, do you see the same issue with 08.01.0005 Paul? 08.00.0102 is very >different from what we have now. > >Regards, Dave > > > Sorry, didn't see the version. But still there seems to be a memory problem. regards Johann
> -----Original Message----- > From: Johann Zuschlag [mailto:zuschlag2@online.de] > Sent: 02 November 2005 15:56 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [ODBC] ERROR [HY000] Out of memory while reading tuples. > > Dave Page: > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Johann Zuschlag [mailto:zuschlag2@online.de] > >>Sent: 02 November 2005 15:09 > >>To: Dave Page > >>Cc: pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org > >>Subject: Re: [ODBC] ERROR [HY000] Out of memory while > reading tuples. > >> > >>Hi Dave, > >> > >>I just thought that we have some kind of problem with memory > >>allocation > >>in bind.c (line 210 -230?). Maybe that one below is linked to > >>it. Seems > >>that declare/fetch allocates to much memory and crashes. > Only strange > >>thing is Anoop didn't change anything there. Unfortunately I > >>don't know > >>anything about the libpq internals. > >> > >> > >> > > > >Well, do you see the same issue with 08.01.0005 Paul? > 08.00.0102 is very > >different from what we have now. > > > >Regards, Dave > > > > > > > Sorry, didn't see the version. But still there seems to be a > memory problem. Possibly - but I don't want to try chasing bugs until they're confirmed to be in the latest version. /D