| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |
| Date: | 2014-06-10 04:27:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J=S3+pr3QJ8o7Mc753KxW_5t=Emo1G5Hc12vsZ2eAAEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:37 PM, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've fixed and tested a memory leak bug in dblink. Could you review and
commit this? I'll add this to the CommitFest shortly.
Is there a need to free memory context in PG_CATCH()?
In error path the memory due to this temporary context will get
freed as it will delete the transaction context and this
temporary context will definitely be in the hierarchy of it, so
it should also get deleted. I think such handling can be
useful incase we use PG_CATCH() to suppress the error.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | b8flowerfire | 2014-06-10 05:13:08 | Re: why postgresql define NTUP_PER_BUCKET as 10, not other numbers smaller |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-10 02:19:26 | Re: Allowing NOT IN to use ANTI joins |