On 2013-06-04 16:23:00 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04.06.2013 15:27, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Naoya Anzai (anzai-na...@mxu.nes.nec.co.jp) wrote: > >>I've found a memory-leak bug in PostgreSQL 9.1.9's background > >>writer process. > > > >This looks legit, but probably not the right approach to fixing it. > >Looks like it'd be better to work out a way to use a static variable to > >reuse the same memory, ala what GetRunningTransactionData() does, and > >avoid having to do allocation while holding all the locks (or at least, > >not very often). > > I can't get too excited about the overhead of a single palloc here. It's a > fairly heavy operation anyway, and only runs once per checkpoint. And we > haven't heard any actual complaints of latency hiccups with > wal_level=hot_standby.
I think we will have to resort to running it more frequently in the not too far away future, its way to easy to get into a situation where all of the checkpoints/xl_running_xact's are suboverflowed delaying consistency considerably. Seems more consistent with the rest of the code too. But anyway, I am fine with fixing it either way. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
