Hello, Joe! JC> With the current SRF patch, in certain circumstances selecting from JC> a JC> VIEW produces "Buffer Leak" warnings, while selecting from the JC> function itself does not. Also the VIEW returns only one of the two
Selecting from the function produces such a warning when using it with limit, but it does not when the function returns less rows than specified in limit . e.g. just_fun=# create table testtab(i integer, v varchar); CREATE just_fun=# insert into testtab values(1,'one'); INSERT 16592 1 just_fun=# insert into testtab values(2,'two'); INSERT 16593 1 just_fun=# insert into testtab values(3,'three'); INSERT 16594 1 just_fun=# insert into testtab values(1,'one again'); INSERT 16595 1 just_fun=# create function fun(integer) returns setof testtab as 'select * from testtab where i= $1;' language 'sql'; just_fun=# select * from fun(1) as fun; i | v ---+----------- 1 | one 1 | one again (2 rows) just_fun=# select * from fun(1) as fun limit 1; WARNING: Buffer Leak: [050] (freeNext=-3, freePrev=-3, rel=16570/16587, blockNum=0, flags=0x85, refcount=1 2) i | v ---+----- 1 | one (1 row) ....And there is no warning with "ORDER BY" just_fun=# select * from fun(1) as fun order by v limit 1; i | v ---+----- 1 | one (1 row) Hope this info maybe useful to solve the problem. By the way, could you give an example of C-function returning set? JC> expected rows. The same SQL function when declared as "... JC> getfoo(int) RETURNS int AS ..." instead of "... getfoo(int) RETURNS JC> *setof* int AS..." does not produce the warning. Any ideas what I JC> should be focusing on to track this down? Does anyone have any JC> favorite troubleshooting techniques for this type of problem? JC> Thanks, JC> Joe Thank you for your work in this direction! With best regards, Valentine Zaretsky ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
