From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fix memory leak when output postgres_fdw's "Relations" |
Date: | 2021-07-23 19:20:37 |
Message-ID: | CAEudQArMHGG4vbkSzCnXRETFfcAH-J_uVMZwep=qjVufaPVjcg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em sex., 23 de jul. de 2021 às 11:32, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escreveu:
> Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > This is a minor leak, oversight in
> >
> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/4526951d564a7eed512b4a0ac3b5893e0a115690#diff-e399f5c029192320f310a79f18c20fb18c8e916fee993237f6f82f05dad851c5
>
> I don't think you understand how Postgres memory management works.
>
Maybe not yet. Valgrind may also don't understand yet.
> There's no permanent leak here, just till the end of the command;
> so it's pretty doubtful that there's any need to expend cycles on
> an explicit pfree.
>
Maybe.
==30691== 24 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 123 of 469
==30691== at 0x8991F0: MemoryContextAlloc (mcxt.c:893)
==30691== by 0x899F29: MemoryContextStrdup (mcxt.c:1291)
==30691== by 0x864E09: RelationInitIndexAccessInfo (relcache.c:1419)
==30691== by 0x865F81: RelationBuildDesc (relcache.c:1175)
==30691== by 0x868575: load_critical_index (relcache.c:4168)
==30691== by 0x8684A0: RelationCacheInitializePhase3 (relcache.c:3980)
==30691== by 0x88047A: InitPostgres (postinit.c:1031)
==30691== by 0x773F12: PostgresMain (postgres.c:4081)
==30691== by 0x6F9C33: BackendRun (postmaster.c:4506)
==30691== by 0x6F96D8: BackendStartup (postmaster.c:4228)
==30691== by 0x6F8C08: ServerLoop (postmaster.c:1745)
==30691== by 0x6F747B: PostmasterMain (postmaster.c:1417)
Is this is a false-positive?
regards,
Ranier Vilela
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-07-23 19:57:41 | Re: Configure with thread sanitizer fails the thread test |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-23 18:07:32 | Re: Followup Timestamp to timestamp with TZ conversion |