Re: Replica Identity check of partition table on subscriber

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 5:05 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 7:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:09 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:02 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> > > <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > Since the patch has been committed. Attach the last patch to fix the
> > memory leak.
> > > >
> > > > The bug exists on PG10 ~ PG15(HEAD).
> > > >
> > > > For HEAD,PG14,PG13, to fix the memory leak, I think we should use
> > > > free_attrmap instead of pfree and release the no-longer-useful
> > > > attrmap When rebuilding the map info.
> > > >
> > > > For PG12,PG11,PG10, we only need to add the code to release the
> > > > no-longer-useful attrmap when rebuilding the map info. We can still
> > > > use
> > > > pfree() because the attrmap in back-branch is a single array like:
> > > >
> > > > entry->attrmap = palloc(desc->natts * sizeof(AttrNumber));
> > >
> > > LGTM, thank you.
> > >
> >
> > LGTM as well. One thing I am not completely sure about is whether to make this
> > change in PG10 for which the final release is in Nov?
> > AFAICS, the leak can only occur after the relcache invalidation on the subscriber
> > which may or may not be a very frequent case. What do you guys think?
> >
> > Personally, I feel it is good to fix it in all branches including PG10.
> +1
>

Pushed!

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.