> These numbers don't even have any demonstrable connection to Postgres, > let alone to an xpath-related memory leak. You're going to need to come > up with a concrete test case if you want anyone to investigate. > > regards, tom lane As I said in the start of this thread, this is all just a hunch, and the graphs only show you the overall picture of this machine. However Postgres is the only application running, and I can see on the box that all the memory is being consumed by various postgres processes. In addition when Postgres is restarted, all this memory is freed. Something changed in the behavior of our database between running 8.1 and 8.3, and the most significant change we made was the use of xpath() and the XML type. My general question remains: should Postgres slowly be accumulating memory like this, possibly up to the maximum amount of shared memory we've allocated for it (4GB in this case)? If so then this memory trend isn't something I should worry about. -- m@
