From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Memory leak in vac_update_relstats ? |
Date: | 2007-07-20 18:18:57 |
Message-ID: | 11932.1184955537@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/20/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> It's palloc'd in the current memory context, so it's not serious.
> Right. But may be for code completeness, we should add that
> missing heap_freetuple.
Personally I've been thinking of mounting an effort to get rid of
unnecessary pfree's wherever possible. Particularly in user-defined
functions, "cleaning up" at the end is a waste of code space and
cycles too, because they're typically called in contexts that are
going to be reset immediately afterward.
In the case of vac_update_relstats, it's called only once per
transaction, so there's certainly no point in being a neatnik.
Stuff you need to worry about is functions that might be called
many times in the same memory context.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bill Moran | 2007-07-20 19:28:25 | Solved? Re: 8.2.4 signal 11 with large transaction |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2007-07-20 18:11:49 | Re: 8.2.4 signal 11 with large transaction |