Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes: > On 28.03.2013 01:01, Tom Lane wrote: >> Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> I'm inclined to think that the overhead isn't worth the trouble. This >>> is the only bug of its type we had in recent years.
>> I agree that checking for resource leaks after each WAL record seems >> too expensive compared to what we'd get for it. But perhaps it's worth >> making a check every so often, like at restartpoints? > That sounds very seldom. How about making it an assertion to check after > every record? I guess I'll have to do some testing to see how expensive > it really is. Well, the actually productive part of this patch is to reduce such a failure from ERROR to WARNING, which seems like it probably only requires *one* resource cleanup after we exit the apply loop. Doing it per restartpoint is probably reasonable to limit the resource owner's memory consumption (if there were a leak) over a long replay sequence. I am really not seeing much advantage to doing it per record. I suppose you are thinking of being helpful during development, but if anything I would argue that the current behavior of a hard failure is best for development. It guarantees that the developer will notice the failure, if it occurs at all in his test scenario; whereas a WARNING that goes only to the postmaster log will be very very easily missed. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers