Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~)

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 23:36, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 6:52 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 2:17 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 2:06 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 2:56 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I realized that this patch cannot be backpatched because it introduces a new
> > > > > > field into the public PGOutputData structure. Therefore, I think we may need to
> > > > > > use Alvaro's version [1] for the back branches.
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW for back branches, I prefer using the foreach-pfree pattern
> > > > > Michael first proposed, just in case. It's not elegant but it can
> > > > > solve the problem while there is no risk of breaking non-core
> > > > > extensions.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It couldn't solve the problem completely even in back-branches. The
> > > > SQL API case I mentioned and tested by Hou-San in the email [1] won't
> > > > be solved.
> > >
> > > True. There seems another place where we possibly leak memory on
> > > CacheMemoryContext when using pgoutput via SQL APIs:
> > >
> > >         /* Map must live as long as the session does. */
> > >         oldctx = MemoryContextSwitchTo(CacheMemoryContext);
> > >
> > >         entry->attrmap = build_attrmap_by_name_if_req(indesc, outdesc, false);
> > >
> > >         MemoryContextSwitchTo(oldctx);
> > >         RelationClose(ancestor);
> > >
> > > entry->attrmap is pfree'd only when validating the RelationSyncEntry
> > > so remains even after logical decoding API calls.
> > >
> >
> > We have also noticed this but it needs more analysis on the fix which
> > one of my colleagues is doing. I think we can fix this as a separate
> > issue unless you think otherwise.
>
> I agree to fix this as a separate patch.

Thanks Sawada-san, I have started a new thread with a test case which
can reproduce this issue at [1]:
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALDaNm1hewNAsZ_e6FF52a%3D9drmkRJxtEPrzCB6-9mkJyeBBqA%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,
Vignesh