Well, Thank you very much for your help, it's greatly appreciated. At least I can now pinpoint the problem and search for a solution or another reason to upgrade to 9.1 !
Regards, Vincent. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Vincent Dautremont <vinc...@searidgetech.com> writes: > > you were right, > > I do see those CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION a bit more than 1 per second > > (approx. 12 times for 10 seconds) > > Hah. Complain to the rubyrep people. It's most likely just a thinko > about where they should issue that command. If they actually are > changing the function text from one issuance to the next, they would be > well advised to think of a better way to deal with whatever they're > doing that for; it's going to be quite inefficient even without > considering the effects of this leak. > > > I don't know a lot about the internal of rubyrep, but do you think this > is > > not a normal behaviour from a postgresql server point of view ? > > It's not. We have plugged that leak, I think, as of 9.1; but the fact > that it took us this long to notice the leak shows that constant > replacement of a function is not a common usage. All the server's > internal caching related to functions is designed around the assumption > that functions aren't redefined too often. > > If you can't get the rubyrep people to fix their code, updating to PG > 9.1 is a possible workaround. > > regards, tom lane >
