Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@googlemail.com> writes: > On 31 January 2010 16:03, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> It seems a bit unlikely that this would be the largest memory leak in >> that area. Can you show a test case that demonstrates this is worth >> worrying about?
> create table foo(a int unique deferrable initially deferred); > insert into foo (select * from generate_series(1, 10000000)); > begin; > update foo set a=a+1; > set constraints all immediate; > commit; Thanks. I had forgotten all the work we put into minimizing the size of the deferred trigger queue. In this example it's only 16 bytes per entry, whereas a 1-element List is going to involve 16 bytes for the header, 8 bytes for the cell, plus two palloc item overheads --- and double all that on a 64-bit machine. So yeah, this is a significant leak. Patch applied. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers