Horton

Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-06-24T03:15:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > While rebasing a patch broken by 4daa140a2f5, I noticed that the patch
> > does this:
>
> > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ enum ReorderBufferChangeType
> >         REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID,
> >         REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_INSERT,
> >         REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_CONFIRM,
> > +       REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_ABORT,
> >         REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_TRUNCATE
> >  };
>
> > Isn't that an undesirable ABI break for extensions?
>
> I think it's OK in HEAD.  I agree we shouldn't do it like that
> in the back branches.
>

Okay, I'll change this in back branches and HEAD to keep the code
consistent, or do you think it is better to retain the order in HEAD
as it is and just change it for back-branches?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Commits

  1. Fix ABI break introduced by commit 4daa140a2f.

  2. Fix valgrind issue in pgoutput.c.

  3. Fix decoding of speculative aborts.

  4. pgoutput: Fix memory leak due to RelationSyncEntry.map.

  5. Fix initialization of RelationSyncEntry for streaming transactions.

  6. Implement streaming mode in ReorderBuffer.