Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of mar dic 13 11:44:49 -0300 2011: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 05:20:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of dom dic 04 09:20:27 -0300 2011: > > > > > Second, I tried a SELECT FOR SHARE on a table of 1M tuples; this might > > > incur > > > some cost due to the now-guaranteed use of pg_multixact for FOR SHARE. > > > See > > > attached fklock-test-forshare.sql. The median run slowed by 7% under the > > > patch, albeit with a rather brief benchmark run. Both master and patched > > > PostgreSQL seemed to exhibit a statement-scope memory leak in this test > > > case: > > > to lock 1M rows, backend-private memory grew by about 500M. When trying > > > 10M > > > rows, I cancelled the query after 1.2 GiB of consumption. This limited > > > the > > > duration of a convenient test run. > > > > I found that this is caused by mxid_to_string being leaked all over the > > place :-( I "fixed" it by making the returned string be a static that's > > malloced and then freed on the next call. There's still virtsize growth > > (not sure it's a legitimate leak) with that, but it's much smaller. > > Great. I'll retry that benchmark with the next patch version. I no longer > see a leak on master, so I probably messed up that part of the test somehow.
Maybe you recompiled without the MULTIXACT_DEBUG symbol defined? > By the way, do you have a rapid procedure for finding the call site behind a > leak like this? Not really ... I tried some games with GDB (which yielded the first report: I did some "call MemoryContextStats(TopMemoryContext)" to see where the bloat was, and then stepped with breaks on MemoryContextAlloc, also with a watch on CurrentMemoryContext and noting when it was pointing to the bloated context. But since I'm a rookie with GDB I didn't find a way to only break when MemoryContextAlloc was pointing at that context. I know there must be a way.) and then went to do some code inspection instead. I gather some people use valgrind successfully. > > + if (str != NULL) > > + free(str); > > + > > + str = malloc(15 * (nmembers + 1) + 4); > > Need a check for NULL return. Yeah, thanks ... I changed it to MemoryContextAlloc(TopMemoryContext), because I'm not sure that a combination of malloc plus palloc would end up in extra memory fragmentation. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
