| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Memory leak fix in psql |
| Date: | 2022-07-21 01:48:13 |
| Message-ID: | YtiwXcWg/jW6F2C9@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:10:43AM +0800, Japin Li wrote:
> Yeah, we should take care of the backpatch risk. However, I think
> it makes sense to backpatch.
We are talking about 256 bytes being leaked in each loop when a
validation pattern or when a query fails, so I don't see a strong
argument in manipulating 10~14 more than necessary for this amount of
memory. The contents of describe.c are the same for v15 though, and
we are still in beta on REL_15_STABLE, so I have applied the patch
down to v15, adding what Alvaro has sent on top of the rest.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-07-21 02:02:14 | Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-07-21 01:40:31 | Re: Refactor to make use of a common function for GetSubscriptionRelations and GetSubscriptionNotReadyRelations. |