On Fri, 11 Sept 2026 at 08:36, Mario Karuza <[email protected]> wrote: > Memory allocated for copied pass-by-reference Datums was not accounted > against work_mem because tuplesort_putdatum() passed a hardcoded tuplen > of 0 to tuplesort_puttuple_common(). Function free_sort_tuple() adjusts > the accounting by the amount actually allocated, so freeing such a > tuple subtracts an amount that was never added. > > This was introduced in 6ed83d5fa55, which switched non-bounded sorts to > bump contexts. That commit correctly changed the other tuplesort_put*() > functions to compute the size, leaving only this one passing hardcoded > 0.
Can you share how you found this issue? e.g., was it a problem you found in production because of excessive memory usage? or was it human, AI, or other tooling looking at the code? David
