Memory leak in gingetbitmap

Started by Heikki Linnakangasalmost 11 years ago2 messages
#1Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakangas@vmware.com

While looking at the segfault that Olaf Gawenda reported (bug #12694), I
realized that the GIN fast scan patch introduced a small memory leak to
re-scanning a GIN index. In a nutshell, freeScanKeys() needs to pfree()
the two new arrays, requiredEntries and additionalEntries.

After fixing that, I'm still seeing a small leak. I found that the
queryCategories field also needs to be free'd, but it still leaks even
after fixing that.

I think we need a more whole-sale approach. I'm thinking of adding a new
memory context to contain everything related to the scan keys, which can
then be destroyed in whole.

We haven't heard any complaints about this from users, but I think this
deserves to be fixed. Perhaps not worth back-patching however.

PS. Here's what I'm using to test this:

create extension btree_gin;
create table a (t text);
create table b (t text);
insert into b values ('foo'), ('bar');
insert into a select 'x'||g from generate_series(1, 2000000) g;
create index i_b On b using gin (t) ;
set enable_hashjoin=off;
set enable_material=off;
set enable_seqscan=off;
set enable_mergejoin=off;
set enable_indexscan=off;

select * from a, b where a.t = b.t;

It doesn't leak if the index is a regular b-tree index.

- Heikki

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Heikki Linnakangas (#1)
Re: Memory leak in gingetbitmap

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes:

[ assorted GIN leaks ]

I think we need a more whole-sale approach. I'm thinking of adding a new
memory context to contain everything related to the scan keys, which can
then be destroyed in whole.

We haven't heard any complaints about this from users, but I think this
deserves to be fixed. Perhaps not worth back-patching however.

+1 to using a context instead of a lot of retail pfrees, and I concur
that we shouldn't back-patch (barring seeing some field complaints).

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers