"Heinemann, Manfred (IMS)" <HeinemannM@imsweb.com> writes:
> Here is an example where I can show significant extra memory consumption when setting search_path on a function:
I got around to testing this example today, and I don't see what you're
seeing --- the memory consumption seems stable, and about the same with
or without the "SET search_path" clause.
You didn't specify exactly how to do this bit:
--populate 1,000,000 rows with random values from 1,000 surnames for 'SURNAME'
so I did it like this:
INSERT INTO test_search_path(date_last_modified, last_name)
select clock_timestamp(), (random()*1000)::int::text
from generate_series(1,1000000);
The example doesn't seem like it'd be terribly data-dependent, but
maybe that's wrong?
Also, I assume you're running a reasonably up-to-date PG release,
otherwise I'd be wondering about leaks in the GIN index AM; we've
fixed some issues of that sort in GIN bulk updates in the past.
But again, it's not clear what the connection to a function SET
clause would be. So I lack a plausible theory at the moment.
regards, tom lane