Le lun. 29 nov. 2021 à 20:39, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> a écrit :

> Guillaume Lelarge <guilla...@lelarge.info> writes:
> > I've tried Justin's patch but it didn't help with my memory allocation
> > issue. FWIW, I attach the patch I used in v14.
>
> [ looks closer ... ]  Ah, that patch is a bit buggy: it fails to do the
> right thing in the cases where the loop does a "continue".  The attached
> revision seems to behave properly.
>
> I still see a small leakage, which I think is due to accumulation of
> pending sinval messages for the catalog updates.  I'm curious whether
> that's big enough to be a problem for Guillaume's use case.  (We've
> speculated before about bounding the memory used for pending sinval
> in favor of just issuing a cache reset when the list would be too
> big.  But nobody's done anything about it, suggesting that people
> seldom have a problem in practice.)
>
>
I've tried your patch with my test case. It still uses a lot of memory.
Actually even more.

I have this with the log_statement_stats:

1185072 kB max resident size

And I have this with the log-memory-contexts function:

LOG:  Grand total: 1007796352 bytes in 320 blocks; 3453512 free (627
chunks); 1004342840 used

Contrary to Justin's patch, the shdepReassignOwned doesn't seem to be used.
I don't get any shdepReassignOwned line in the log file. I tried multiple
times to avoid any mistake on my part, but got same result.

>> DROP OWNED BY likely has similar issues.
>
> > Didn't try it, but it wouldn't be a surprise.
>
> I tried just changing the REASSIGN to a DROP in Justin's example,
> and immediately hit
>
> ERROR:  out of shared memory
> HINT:  You might need to increase max_locks_per_transaction.
>
> thanks to the per-object locks we try to acquire.  So I'm not
> sure that the DROP case can reach an interesting amount of
> local memory leaked before it runs out of lock-table space.
>
>
I've hit the same issue when I tried my ALTER LARGE OBJECT workaround in
one transaction.


-- 
Guillaume.

Reply via email to