what about just free _SPI_stack in AtEOXact_SPI? if the transaction end was
initiated by SPI , AtEOXact_SPI will do nothing.
for example:
@@ -283,6 +295,8 @@ AtEOXact_SPI(bool isCommit)
errmsg("transaction left non-empty SPI stack"),
errhint("Check for missing \"SPI_finish\"
calls.")));
+ if (_SPI_stack)
+ pfree(_SPI_stack);
From: Michael Paquier
Date: 2018-04-20 08:49
To: Postgres hackers
CC: Peter Eisentraut; Andrew Dunstan; jian.l...@i-soft.com.cn
Subject: Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 03:10:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You are right. I can easily see the leak if I use for example a
> background worker which connects to a database, and launches many
> transactions in a row. The laziest reproducer I have is to patch one of
> my bgworkers to launch millions of transactions in a tight loop and the
> leak is plain (this counts relations automatically, does not matter):
> https://github.com/michaelpq/pg_plugins/tree/master/count_relations
>
> TopMemoryContext is associated to a session, so the comment in
> AtEOXact_SPI() is wrong.
I have been looking at this one this morning, and I can see at least two
problems:
1) When SPI_connect_ext is used in an atomic context, then the
allocation of _SPI_stack should happen in TopTransactionContext instead
of TopMemoryContext. This way, any callers of SPI_connect would not be
impacted by any memory leaks.
2) Error stacks with non-atomic calls leak memorya anyway. It is easy
to find leaks of _SPI_stack in the regression tests when an ERROR
happens in a PL call which lead to AtEOXact_SPI being called in
AbortTransaction. See that as an example:
@@ -283,6 +285,12 @@ AtEOXact_SPI(bool isCommit)
errmsg("transaction left non-empty SPI stack"),
errhint("Check for missing \"SPI_finish\" calls.")));
+ if (_SPI_current != NULL && !_SPI_current->atomic && _SPI_stack != NULL)
+ ereport(WARNING,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_WARNING),
+ errmsg("non-atomic transaction left non-empty SPI stack"),
+ errhint("Check after non-atomic \"SPI_connect_ext\"
calls.")));
The cleanest approach I can think about is to have SPI use its own
memory context which gets cleaned up in AtEOXact_SPI, but I would like
to hear more from Peter Eisentraut and Andrew Dunstand first as
author/committer and reviewer as it is their stuff.
I am attaching a preliminary patch, which fixes partially the leak, but
that does not take care of the leaks caused by the error stacks.
--
Michael
