Re: [HACKERS] Temp Table Memory Leak

> 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 remember now. That entire code is changed to do the replacement
before getting to actual cache.

>
> > 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.
>

Seems we can not fix this in 6.5.* without the risk of more bugs. I
agree on focusing on 7.0.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026