Re: [HACKERS] caches lifetime with SQL vs PL/PGSQL procs

2005-03-22 Thread strk
It is embarassing for me, but I could not reproduce the bug. :( Maybe I just ended up with a corrupted database (or I was just too tired). Behaviour seems to be the same for both SQL and pl/pgsql functions on a new database (and I got rid of the old one). Sorry. --strk; On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at

[HACKERS] caches lifetime with SQL vs PL/PGSQL procs

2005-03-20 Thread strk
On postgresql-8.0.0 I've faced a *really* weird behavior. A simple query (single table - simple function call - no index), makes postgres process grow about as much as the memory size required to keep ALL rows in memory. The invoked procedure call doesn't leak. It's IMMUTABLE. Calls other

Re: [HACKERS] caches lifetime with SQL vs PL/PGSQL procs

2005-03-17 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've tried with 7.4.3 - *good* results with both SQL and PL/PGSQL (actually even less that best 8.0.1: 12Mb) I think this makes it a bug... You haven't actually provided a test case that would let someone else reproduce the problem ...

Re: [HACKERS] caches lifetime with SQL vs PL/PGSQL procs

2005-03-16 Thread strk
I've tested with 8.0.1 and get same results. --strk; On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:04:03PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On postgresql-8.0.0 I've faced a *really* weird behavior. A simple query (single table - simple function call - no index), makes postgres process grow about as much as the

Re: [HACKERS] caches lifetime with SQL vs PL/PGSQL procs

2005-03-16 Thread strk
I've tried with 7.4.3 - *good* results with both SQL and PL/PGSQL (actually even less that best 8.0.1: 12Mb) I think this makes it a bug... --strk; On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:58:44PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've tested with 8.0.1 and get same results. --strk; On Wed, Mar 16,