FreeTDS Development Group

["ZIGLIO, Frediano, VF-IT" <Frediano.Ziglio AT vodafone.com>]

> 
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 12:54:11PM +0200, ZIGLIO, Frediano, 
> VF-IT wrote:
> 
> > What do you mean by "96-120 bytes per 1000 iterations" ?
> 
> I execute 1,000 interations of the call_sp() function that I 
> mentioned 
> in my previous post in a 'for' loop. That is:
> 
>         void call_sp(db_ctx *ctx, int blah) {
> 
>                 dbrpcinit(ctx->dbproc, ..., 0);
>                 dbrpcparam();
>                 ...
>                 dbrpcsend();
>                 dbsqlok();
>                 while (dbresults() != NO_MORE_RESULTS) {
>                         /* dbbind points to stack variables only */
>                         dbbind();
>                         ....
>                         while (dbnextrow() != NO_MORE_ROWS) {
>                                 /* process bound variables */
>                         }
>                 }
>                 if (dbhasretstat() == TRUE) {
>                         ret = dbrestatus(ctx->dbproc)
>                         /* do stuff here */
>                 }
>                 return;
>         }
> 
>       for (x = 0; x < 1000; x++) {
>               call_sp(ctx, x);
>       }       
> 
> If I set the upper bound of the loop to 10, I see no memory 
> growth. If I 
> set the upper bound of the for loop to 1000, I see ~100 bytes 
> of memory 
> growth. This growth increases linearly as the upper bound of the 
> interations grows.
> 
> > Or did just you try with 1000 iterations and you got 100 
> bytes of leak?
> > You have to keep in mind that system libraries (glibc, nss 
> modules and
> > so on) sometimes allocate some bytes never freed (an 
> example in Linux
> > seems gethostbyname).
> 
> True. However, the process should not grow without bound. The dblib
> RPC APIs should not need to call gethostbyname() or any other 
> such functions 
> that have internal static data storage inside the call_sp() function 
> as a single database connection has already been pre-setup.
> 
> The program should reach a steady-state of memory allocation if it is
> just calling call_sp() over and over again and doing nothing new.
> 
> Hope this helps clear things up.
> 

Yes, this clear some things. Can you post entire code (with source store
procedure if you can) so I can try to reproduce it ?

freddy77