| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Cary Huang <cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid memory leaks during base backups |
| Date: | 2022-10-20 18:51:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaPfxcV9KSGQoaQEkDvTbuWYvA1yehQQS8PZgo+P0A4KA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:35 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think elsewhere in the code we reset dangling pointers either ways -
> before or after deleting/resetting memory context. But placing them
> before would give us extra safety in case memory context
> deletion/reset fails. Not sure what's the best way.
I think it's OK to assume that deallocating memory will always
succeed, so it doesn't matter whether you do it just before or just
after that. But it's not OK to assume that *allocating* memory will
always succeed.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-10-20 18:52:03 | Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-10-20 18:47:21 | Re: cross-platform pg_basebackup |