From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Zhang, Jie" <zhangjie2(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [patch] some PQExpBuffer are not destroyed in pg_dump |
Date: | 2020-04-14 01:11:56 |
Message-ID: | 20200414011156.GD1492@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 04:51:06PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 11:42, Zhang, Jie <zhangjie2(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>> In getDefaultACLs function, some PQExpBuffer are not destroy
>
> Yes, it looks like an oversight. It's related to the commit
> e2090d9d20d809 which is back-patched to 9.6.
>
> The patch looks good to me.
Indeed. Any code path of pg_dump calling buildACLQueries() clears up
things, and I think that it is a better practice to clean up properly
PQExpBuffer stuff even if there is always the argument that pg_dump
is a tool running in a "short"-term context. So I will backpatch that
unless there are any objections from others.
The part I am actually rather amazed of here is that I don't recall
seeing Coverity complaining about leaks after this commit. Perhaps it
just got lost.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-14 01:32:38 | Re: wrong relkind error messages |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-14 01:01:51 | Re: pgbench - test whether a variable exists |