Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~)
Date: 2024-12-09 07:43:30
Message-ID: Z1afotXXP90qfhVL@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 08:23:00AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. They make sense to me.
>
> Please see the updated version as attached.

It sounds to me that we are in agreement for HEAD, so I've moved ahead
and fixed this issue on HEAD using your patch that adds a dedicated
memory context in PGOutputData as that's the cleanest way to address
things in a single execution context of pgoutput.

For stable branches, let's see.. I need to reply to the latest
message.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kirill Reshke 2024-12-09 07:50:20 Re: Pass ParseState as down to utility functions.
Previous Message Michael Harris 2024-12-09 07:34:22 FileFallocate misbehaving on XFS