Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] PATCH: Memory leaks on start-up

2003-07-26 Thread Bruce Momjian

This patch no longer applies cleanly.  The call is now:

freeaddrinfo_all(hint.ai_family, addrs);

Would you please submit a new patch, or is it no longer required?  There
were two fixed in your patch.

Thanks.

---

Lee Kindness wrote:
Content-Description: message body text

 Tom, happier with the attached patch?
 
 I'd have to disagree with regards to the memory leaks not being worth
 a mention - any such leak can cause problems when the PostgreSQL
 installation is either unattended, long-living andor has very high
 connection levels. Half a kilobyte on start-up isn't negligible in
 this light.
 
 Regards, Lee.
 
 Tom Lane writes:
   Lee Kindness [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guys, attached is a patch to fix two memory leaks on start-up.
   
   I do not like the changes to miscinit.c.  In the first place, it is not
   a memory leak to do a one-time allocation of state for a proc_exit
   function.  A bigger complaint is that your proposed change introduces
   fragile coupling between CreateLockFile and its callers, in order to
   save no resources worth mentioning.  More, it introduces an assumption
   that the globals directoryLockFile and socketLockFile don't change while
   the postmaster is running.  UnlinkLockFile should unlink the file that
   it was originally told to unlink, regardless of what happens to those
   globals.
   
   If you are intent on spending code to free stuff just before the
   postmaster exits, a better fix would be for UnlinkLockFile to free its
   string argument after using it.
 

 Index: src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c
 ===
 RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c,v
 retrieving revision 1.157
 diff -u -r1.157 pqcomm.c
 --- src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c12 Jun 2003 07:36:51 -  1.157
 +++ src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c22 Jul 2003 14:16:46 -
 @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@
   added++;
   }
  
 - freeaddrinfo(addrs);
 + freeaddrinfo2(family, addrs);
  
   if (!added)
   {
 Index: src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c
 ===
 RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c,v
 retrieving revision 1.104
 diff -u -r1.104 miscinit.c
 --- src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c 27 Jun 2003 19:08:37 -  1.104
 +++ src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c 22 Jul 2003 14:16:46 -
 @@ -673,8 +673,15 @@
  static void
  UnlinkLockFile(int status, Datum filename)
  {
 - unlink((char *) DatumGetPointer(filename));
 - /* Should we complain if the unlink fails? */
 +  char *fname = (char *)DatumGetPointer(filename);
 +  if( fname != NULL )
 +{
 +  if( unlink(fname) != 0 )
 + {
 +   /* Should we complain if the unlink fails? */
 + }
 +  free(fname);
 +}
  }
  
  /*

 
 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
  Bruce Momjian|  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive, |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.|  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

   http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html


Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] PATCH: Memory leaks on start-up

2003-07-23 Thread Bruce Momjian

Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:

http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches

I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.

---


Lee Kindness wrote:
Content-Description: message body text

 Tom, happier with the attached patch?
 
 I'd have to disagree with regards to the memory leaks not being worth
 a mention - any such leak can cause problems when the PostgreSQL
 installation is either unattended, long-living andor has very high
 connection levels. Half a kilobyte on start-up isn't negligible in
 this light.
 
 Regards, Lee.
 
 Tom Lane writes:
   Lee Kindness [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guys, attached is a patch to fix two memory leaks on start-up.
   
   I do not like the changes to miscinit.c.  In the first place, it is not
   a memory leak to do a one-time allocation of state for a proc_exit
   function.  A bigger complaint is that your proposed change introduces
   fragile coupling between CreateLockFile and its callers, in order to
   save no resources worth mentioning.  More, it introduces an assumption
   that the globals directoryLockFile and socketLockFile don't change while
   the postmaster is running.  UnlinkLockFile should unlink the file that
   it was originally told to unlink, regardless of what happens to those
   globals.
   
   If you are intent on spending code to free stuff just before the
   postmaster exits, a better fix would be for UnlinkLockFile to free its
   string argument after using it.
 

 Index: src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c
 ===
 RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c,v
 retrieving revision 1.157
 diff -u -r1.157 pqcomm.c
 --- src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c12 Jun 2003 07:36:51 -  1.157
 +++ src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c22 Jul 2003 14:16:46 -
 @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@
   added++;
   }
  
 - freeaddrinfo(addrs);
 + freeaddrinfo2(family, addrs);
  
   if (!added)
   {
 Index: src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c
 ===
 RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c,v
 retrieving revision 1.104
 diff -u -r1.104 miscinit.c
 --- src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c 27 Jun 2003 19:08:37 -  1.104
 +++ src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c 22 Jul 2003 14:16:46 -
 @@ -673,8 +673,15 @@
  static void
  UnlinkLockFile(int status, Datum filename)
  {
 - unlink((char *) DatumGetPointer(filename));
 - /* Should we complain if the unlink fails? */
 +  char *fname = (char *)DatumGetPointer(filename);
 +  if( fname != NULL )
 +{
 +  if( unlink(fname) != 0 )
 + {
 +   /* Should we complain if the unlink fails? */
 + }
 +  free(fname);
 +}
  }
  
  /*

 
 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
  Bruce Momjian|  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive, |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.|  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
  joining column's datatypes do not match


Re: [PATCHES] PATCH: Memory leaks on start-up

2003-07-22 Thread Tom Lane
Lee Kindness [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Guys, attached is a patch to fix two memory leaks on start-up.

I do not like the changes to miscinit.c.  In the first place, it is not
a memory leak to do a one-time allocation of state for a proc_exit
function.  A bigger complaint is that your proposed change introduces
fragile coupling between CreateLockFile and its callers, in order to
save no resources worth mentioning.  More, it introduces an assumption
that the globals directoryLockFile and socketLockFile don't change while
the postmaster is running.  UnlinkLockFile should unlink the file that
it was originally told to unlink, regardless of what happens to those
globals.

If you are intent on spending code to free stuff just before the
postmaster exits, a better fix would be for UnlinkLockFile to free its
string argument after using it.

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

   http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html


Re: [PATCHES] PATCH: Memory leaks on start-up

2003-07-22 Thread Lee Kindness
Tom, happier with the attached patch?

I'd have to disagree with regards to the memory leaks not being worth
a mention - any such leak can cause problems when the PostgreSQL
installation is either unattended, long-living andor has very high
connection levels. Half a kilobyte on start-up isn't negligible in
this light.

Regards, Lee.

Tom Lane writes:
  Lee Kindness [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   Guys, attached is a patch to fix two memory leaks on start-up.
  
  I do not like the changes to miscinit.c.  In the first place, it is not
  a memory leak to do a one-time allocation of state for a proc_exit
  function.  A bigger complaint is that your proposed change introduces
  fragile coupling between CreateLockFile and its callers, in order to
  save no resources worth mentioning.  More, it introduces an assumption
  that the globals directoryLockFile and socketLockFile don't change while
  the postmaster is running.  UnlinkLockFile should unlink the file that
  it was originally told to unlink, regardless of what happens to those
  globals.
  
  If you are intent on spending code to free stuff just before the
  postmaster exits, a better fix would be for UnlinkLockFile to free its
  string argument after using it.

Index: src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c,v
retrieving revision 1.157
diff -u -r1.157 pqcomm.c
--- src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c  12 Jun 2003 07:36:51 -  1.157
+++ src/backend/libpq/pqcomm.c  22 Jul 2003 14:16:46 -
@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@
added++;
}
 
-   freeaddrinfo(addrs);
+   freeaddrinfo2(family, addrs);
 
if (!added)
{
Index: src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c,v
retrieving revision 1.104
diff -u -r1.104 miscinit.c
--- src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c   27 Jun 2003 19:08:37 -  1.104
+++ src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c   22 Jul 2003 14:16:46 -
@@ -673,8 +673,15 @@
 static void
 UnlinkLockFile(int status, Datum filename)
 {
-   unlink((char *) DatumGetPointer(filename));
-   /* Should we complain if the unlink fails? */
+  char *fname = (char *)DatumGetPointer(filename);
+  if( fname != NULL )
+{
+  if( unlink(fname) != 0 )
+   {
+ /* Should we complain if the unlink fails? */
+   }
+  free(fname);
+}
 }
 
 /*

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [PATCHES] PATCH: Memory leaks on start-up

2003-07-22 Thread Tom Lane
Lee Kindness [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 I'd have to disagree with regards to the memory leaks not being worth
 a mention - any such leak can cause problems when the PostgreSQL
 installation is either unattended, long-living andor has very high
 connection levels.

I don't see how.  We are talking about two strings, no more, no less,
that live for exactly the duration of the postmaster run.  Explain to me
how any of your above conditions will affect this code in the slightest?

If UnlinkLockFile ever got invoked before postmaster exit, then this
would be worth doing, and I'll accept the change as a matter of
future-proofing that routine against such use.  But on the argument of
preventing resource leakage today, this is just a waste of code space.

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster