Oh, so this is the later version. Fine. Let me know when it is ready.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > > > Okay, I've looked again at spi_exec and I believe I can fix the bug I > introduced and the memory leak. However, I have only looked quickly and not > made these most recent changes to the execp version nor to the plpython > code. Therefore I am not attaching a patch at the moment, just mentioning that > I've straightened this out in my brain a bit more. > > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > > > On 25 Sep 2002, Neil Conway wrote: > > > > > "Nigel J. Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Yes, I do get the similar results. > > > > > > > > A quick investigation shows that the SPI_freetuptable at the end of > > > > pltcl_SPI_exec is trying to free a tuptable of value 0x82ebe64 > > > > (which looks sensible to me) but which has a memory context of > > > > 0x7f7f7f7f (the unallocated marker). > > > > > > Attached is a patch against CVS HEAD which fixes this, I believe. The > > > problem appears to be the newly added free of the tuptable at the end > > > of pltcl_SPI_exec(). I've added a comment to that effect: > > > > > > /* > > > * Do *NOT* free the tuptable here. That's because if the loop > > > * body executed any SQL statements, it will have already free'd > > > * the tuptable itself, so freeing it twice is not wise. We could > > > * get around this by making a copy of SPI_tuptable->vals and > > > * feeding that to pltcl_set_tuple_values above, but that would > > > * still leak memory (the palloc'ed copy would only be free'd on > > > * context reset). > > > */ > > > > That's certainly where the fault was happening. However, that's where the > > original memory leak problem was coming from (without the SPI_freetuptable > > call). It could be I got that fix wrong and the extra calls you've added are > > the right fix for that. I'll take a look to see what I can learn later. > > > > > At least, I *think* that's the problem -- I've only been looking at > > > the code for about 20 minutes, so I may be wrong. In any case, this > > > makes both memleak() and memleak(1) work on my machine. Let me know if > > > it works for you, and/or if someone knows of a better solution. > > > > I'll have to check later. > > > > > > > > I also added some SPI_freetuptable() calls in some places where Nigel > > > didn't, and added some paranoia when dealing with statically sized > > > buffers (snprintf() rather than sprintf(), and so on). I also didn't > > > include Nigel's changes to some apparently unrelated PL/Python stuff > > > -- this patch includes only the PL/Tcl changes. > > > > I dare say the plpython needs to be checked by someone who knows how to since I > > can well imagine the same nested call fault will exist there. > > > > > > > > -- > Nigel J. Andrews > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
