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>
>> > 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
>> 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
> 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
Thanks, that patch (as committed) has fixed the problem for me. I
don't understand the second one.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: