| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid memory leaks during base backups |
| Date: | 2022-09-28 04:49:28 |
| Message-ID: | 3886739.1664340568@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I had the same opinion. Here's what I think - for backup functions, we
> can have the new memory context child of TopMemoryContext and for
> perform_base_backup(), we can have the memory context child of
> CurrentMemoryContext. With PG_TRY()-PG_FINALLY()-PG_END_TRY(), we can
> delete those memory contexts upon ERRORs. This approach works for us
> since backup-related code doesn't have any FATALs.
Not following your last point here? A process exiting on FATAL
does not especially need to clean up its memory allocations first.
Which is good, because "backup-related code doesn't have any FATALs"
seems like an assertion with a very short half-life.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-09-28 04:56:14 | Re: Avoid memory leaks during base backups |
| Previous Message | kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com | 2022-09-28 04:47:09 | RE: [small patch] Change datatype of ParallelMessagePending from "volatile bool" to "volatile sig_atomic_t" |