Обсуждение: [PATCH v1] fix potential memory leak in untransformRelOptions
*TextDatumGetCString* calls palloc to alloc memory for the option text datum, in some cases the the memory is allocated in *TopTransactionContext*, this may cause memory leak for a long running backend. --- src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c b/src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c index 609329bb21..6076677aef 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c +++ b/src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c @@ -1360,6 +1360,7 @@ untransformRelOptions(Datum options) val = (Node *) makeString(pstrdup(p)); } result = lappend(result, makeDefElem(pstrdup(s), val, -1)); + pfree(s); } return result; -- 2.33.0 -- Regards Junwang Zhao
Вложения
> On 1 Sep 2022, at 10:36, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote: > *TextDatumGetCString* calls palloc to alloc memory for the option > text datum, in some cases the the memory is allocated in > *TopTransactionContext*, this may cause memory leak for a long > running backend. Wouldn't that be a fairly small/contained leak in comparison to memory spent during a long running transaction? Do you have any example of transforming reloptions in a loop into TopTransactionContext where it might add up? -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> writes:
> result = lappend(result, makeDefElem(pstrdup(s), val, -1));
> + pfree(s);
I wonder why it's pstrdup'ing s in the first place.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 10:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> writes:
> > result = lappend(result, makeDefElem(pstrdup(s), val, -1));
> > + pfree(s);
>
> I wonder why it's pstrdup'ing s in the first place.
>
Maybe it's pstrdup'ing s so that the caller should take care of the free?
I'm a little confused when we should call *pfree* and when we should not.
A few lines before there is a call *text_to_cstring* in which it invokes
*pfree* to free the unpacked text [0]. I'm just thinking that since *s* has
been duplicated, we should free it, that's where the patch comes from.
[0]:
```
char *
text_to_cstring(const text *t)
{
/* must cast away the const, unfortunately */
text *tunpacked = pg_detoast_datum_packed(unconstify(text *, t));
int len = VARSIZE_ANY_EXHDR(tunpacked);
char *result;
result = (char *) palloc(len + 1);
memcpy(result, VARDATA_ANY(tunpacked), len);
result[len] = '\0';
if (tunpacked != t)
pfree(tunpacked);
return result;
}
```
> regards, tom lane
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm a little confused when we should call *pfree* and when we should not.
> A few lines before there is a call *text_to_cstring* in which it invokes
> *pfree* to free the unpacked text [0]. I'm just thinking that since *s* has
> been duplicated, we should free it, that's where the patch comes from.
By and large, the server is designed so that small memory leaks don't
matter: the space will be reclaimed when the current memory context
is deleted, and most code runs in reasonably short-lived contexts.
Individually pfree'ing such allocations is actually a net negative,
because it costs cycles and code space.
There are places where a leak *does* matter, but unless you can
demonstrate that this is one, it's not worth changing.
regards, tom lane
got it, thanks.
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>于2022年9月2日 周五01:13写道:
Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm a little confused when we should call *pfree* and when we should not.
> A few lines before there is a call *text_to_cstring* in which it invokes
> *pfree* to free the unpacked text [0]. I'm just thinking that since *s* has
> been duplicated, we should free it, that's where the patch comes from.
By and large, the server is designed so that small memory leaks don't
matter: the space will be reclaimed when the current memory context
is deleted, and most code runs in reasonably short-lived contexts.
Individually pfree'ing such allocations is actually a net negative,
because it costs cycles and code space.
There are places where a leak *does* matter, but unless you can
demonstrate that this is one, it's not worth changing.
regards, tom lane
Regards
Junwang Zhao
On 2022-Sep-01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> writes:
> > result = lappend(result, makeDefElem(pstrdup(s), val, -1));
> > + pfree(s);
>
> I wonder why it's pstrdup'ing s in the first place.
Yeah, I think both the pstrdups in that function are useless. The
DefElems can just point to the correct portion of the (already pstrdup'd
by TextDatumGetCString) copy of optiondatums[i]. We modify that copy to
install \0 in the place where the = is, and that copy is not freed
anywhere.
diff --git a/src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c b/src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c
index 609329bb21..0aa4b334ab 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c
+++ b/src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c
@@ -1357,9 +1357,9 @@ untransformRelOptions(Datum options)
if (p)
{
*p++ = '\0';
- val = (Node *) makeString(pstrdup(p));
+ val = (Node *) makeString(p);
}
- result = lappend(result, makeDefElem(pstrdup(s), val, -1));
+ result = lappend(result, makeDefElem(s, val, -1));
}
return result;
I think these pstrdups were already not necessary when the function was
added in 265f904d8f25, because textout() was already known to return a
palloc'ed copy of its input; but later 220db7ccd8c8 made this contract
even more explicit.
Keeping 's' and removing the pstrdups better uses memory, because we
have a single palloc'ed chunk per option rather than two.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On 2022-Sep-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Keeping 's' and removing the pstrdups better uses memory, because we > have a single palloc'ed chunk per option rather than two. Pushed. This is pretty much cosmetic, so no backpatch. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "The Gord often wonders why people threaten never to come back after they've been told never to return" (www.actsofgord.com)