| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(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: | 2022-10-03 02:59:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoA+bSB_s_t5s5HtMtChUuZpfrW++oUVCkE_5ZpRoU2J9w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 7:53 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 29.09.22 06:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > While this seems a future-proof idea, I wonder if it might be overkill
> > since we don't need to worry about accumulation of leaked memory in
> > this case. Given that only check_cluter_name is the case where we
> > found a small memory leak, I think it's adequate to fix it.
> >
> > Fixing this issue suppresses the valgrind's complaint but since the
> > boot value of cluster_name is "" the memory leak we can avoid is only
> > 1 byte.
>
> I have committed this. I think it's better to keep the code locally
> robust and not to have to rely on complex analysis of how GUC memory
> management works.
Thanks! Agreed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-10-03 03:03:12 | Re: pg_upgrade test failure |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-10-03 02:58:33 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |