=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> On 2025-May-11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In particular, I had not realized that autovacuum
>> leaks a nontrivial amount of memory per relation processed (cf 0009),
>> and apparently has done for a few releases now. This is horrid in
>> databases with many table
On 2025-May-11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Okay, here is a patch series that updates the
> 0001-Make-memory-contexts-themselves-more-visible-to-valg.patch
> patch you posted in that thread, and makes various follow-up
> fixes that either fix or paper over various leaks.
Wow, that's a lot of extra fixes.
I wrote:
> Okay, here is a patch series that updates the
> 0001-Make-memory-contexts-themselves-more-visible-to-valg.patch
> patch you posted in that thread,
I forgot to mention that I did try to implement the "two-level
pool" scheme that the Valgrind documentation talks about, and
could not make
I wrote:
> And, since there's nothing new under the sun around here,
> we already had a discussion about that back in 2021:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/3471359.1615937770%40sss.pgh.pa.us
> That thread seems to have led to fixing some specific bugs,
> but we never committed any of t
I wrote:
> One thing I noticed while reading the Valgrind manual is that
> they describe a facility for "two level" tracking of custom
> allocators such as ours.
And, since there's nothing new under the sun around here,
we already had a discussion about that back in 2021:
https://www.postgresql.o
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2025-05-08 22:04:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> A nearby thread [1] reminded me to wonder why we seem to have
>> so many false-positive leaks reported by Valgrind these days.
> Huh. We use the memory pool client requests to inform valgrind about memory
> contexts. I seem
Andres Freund writes:
> Briefly looking through the leaks indeed quickly found a real seeming leak,
> albeit of limited size:
> ProcessStartupPacket() does
> buf = palloc(len + 1);
> in TopMemoryContext() without ever freeing it.
Yeah, I saw that too. Didn't seem worth doing anything about
Hi,
On 2025-05-09 11:29:43 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> We currently don't reset TopMemoryContext at exit, which, obviously, does
> massively increase the number of leaks. But OTOH, without that there's not a
> whole lot of value in the leak check...
Briefly looking through the leaks indeed quic
Hi,
On 2025-05-08 22:04:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> A nearby thread [1] reminded me to wonder why we seem to have
> so many false-positive leaks reported by Valgrind these days.
> For example, at exit of a backend that's executed a couple of
> trivial queries, I see
>
> ==00:00:00:25.515 260013==
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 7:04 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> A nearby thread [1] reminded me to wonder why we seem to have
> so many false-positive leaks reported by Valgrind these days.
> For example, at exit of a backend that's executed a couple of
> trivial queries, I see
>
> ==00:00:00:25.515 260013== LE
10 matches
Mail list logo
