| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~) |
| Date: | 2024-12-09 10:06:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JEmjtaA+wQ0iSr_m6tBi-sNXEDjVx7v_TO42jYYRMSMQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 2:56 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I realized that this patch cannot be backpatched because it introduces a new
> > field into the public PGOutputData structure. Therefore, I think we may need to
> > use Alvaro's version [1] for the back branches.
>
> FWIW for back branches, I prefer using the foreach-pfree pattern
> Michael first proposed, just in case. It's not elegant but it can
> solve the problem while there is no risk of breaking non-core
> extensions.
>
It couldn't solve the problem completely even in back-branches. The
SQL API case I mentioned and tested by Hou-San in the email [1] won't
be solved.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amul Sul | 2024-12-09 10:11:48 | Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-12-09 10:06:13 | Re: FileFallocate misbehaving on XFS |