On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > I've committed most of this, except for some planner bits that I >> > didn't like, and after a bunch of cleanup. Instead, I committed the >> > consider-parallel-v2.patch with some additional planner bits to make >> > up for the ones I removed from your patch. So, now we have parallel >> > sequential scan! >> >> Pretty cool. All I had to do is mark my slow plperl functions as >> being parallel safe, and bang, parallel execution of them for seq >> scans. >> >> But, there does seem to be a memory leak. >> > > Thanks for the report. > > I think main reason of the leak in workers seems to be due the reason > that one of the buffer used while sending tuples (in function > BuildRemapInfo) > from worker to master is not getting freed and it is allocated for each > tuple worker sends back to master. I couldn't find use of such a buffer, > so I think we can avoid the allocation of same or atleast we need to free > it. Attached patch remove_unused_buf_allocation_v1.patch should fix the > issue.
Thanks, that patch (as committed) has fixed the problem for me. I don't understand the second one. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
