Thank you very much for your help, it's greatly appreciated.
At least I can now pinpoint the problem and search for a solution or another reason to upgrade to 9.1 !
Regards,
Vincent.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Vincent Dautremont <vincent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:Hah. Complain to the rubyrep people. It's most likely just a thinko
> you were right,
> I do see those CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION a bit more than 1 per second
> (approx. 12 times for 10 seconds)
about where they should issue that command. If they actually are
changing the function text from one issuance to the next, they would be
well advised to think of a better way to deal with whatever they're
doing that for; it's going to be quite inefficient even without
considering the effects of this leak.
It's not. We have plugged that leak, I think, as of 9.1; but the fact
> I don't know a lot about the internal of rubyrep, but do you think this is
> not a normal behaviour from a postgresql server point of view ?
that it took us this long to notice the leak shows that constant
replacement of a function is not a common usage. All the server's
internal caching related to functions is designed around the assumption
that functions aren't redefined too often.
If you can't get the rubyrep people to fix their code, updating to PG
9.1 is a possible workaround.
regards, tom lane
