| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kristofer Munn <kmunn(at)munn(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Temp Table Memory Leak |
| Date: | 2000-01-17 05:44:33 |
| Message-ID: | 17178.948087873@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I confirm the leak in 6.5.* --- but I see no leak in current sources.
> Great. Now the big question is should we backpatch, and if so do we
> want a 6.5.4.
Do you have a low-risk patch for this? I recall that we did some
fairly extensive changes involving not only temp tables but the regular
relation cache. Extracting a patch that could be trusted seems like
it might be tough.
> I know you(Tom) have put a number of patches into the 6.5.* branch,
> and we are at least 2 months away from our next release.
I have been throwing low-risk/high-reward fixes into REL6_5 when I
could, with the thought that we might want to do another 6.5.* release.
But I'm undecided on whether we should or not. It seems like we are
close enough to 7.0 beta cycle that we should focus our effort there.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-01-17 06:07:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Temp Table Memory Leak |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-17 05:35:33 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: Getting rid of setheapoverride (was Re: [COMMITTERS] heap.c) |