| From: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Log details for client certificate failures |
| Date: | 2022-09-28 16:43:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAAWbhmjVzvEujjZCRbD2+R=9aT36Dq2oKgAvp0FiMNVoLY6VVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 6:14 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> No. Since cluster_name is PGC_POSTMATER, we leak a little postmaster
> memory only once when starting up. application_name is PGC_USERSET but
> since we normally allocate memory in PortalMemoryContext we eventually
> can free it.
Oh, I see; thank you for the correction. And even if someone put an
application_name into their postgresql.conf, and then changed it a
bunch of times, we'd free the leaked memory from the config_cxt that's
created in ProcessConfigFile().
Is there a reason we don't provide a similar temporary context during
InitializeGUCOptions()? Naively it seems like that would suppress any
future one-time leaks, and maybe cut down on some Valgrind noise. Then
again, maybe there's just not that much demand for pallocs during GUC
hooks.
Thanks,
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-09-28 16:49:01 | Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why |
| Previous Message | Önder Kalacı | 2022-09-28 16:08:41 | A potential memory leak on Merge Join when Sort node is not below Materialize node |