| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris |
| Date: | 2006-10-03 21:09:23 |
| Message-ID: | 11818.1159909763@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was planning to do it right now, on the grounds that #2 and #3 are bug
>> fixes, and that fixing the existing memory leakage hazard is a good
>> thing too.
> I am OK with doing it now, but calling it a bug fix seems like a
> stretch. ;-)
How so? The lack of a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS was reported as a bug to
start with; it was only while investigating that that we realized there
was a memory-leak hazard, but that doesn't make the latter less real.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-10-03 21:11:55 | Re: guc units cleanup |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-10-03 21:06:47 | Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris |