| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17994: Invalidating relcache corrupts tupDesc inside ExecEvalFieldStoreDeForm() |
| Date: | 2023-08-22 19:22:46 |
| Message-ID: | d3c6db0a-4231-d9af-ee5c-206e8067331c@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2023-08-21 Mo 12:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 2023-08-21 Mo 08:33, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Hmm ... when exactly do these values get freed if no longer needed? Is
>>> the theory that leaking them is not relevant?
>> Not sure I understand "relevant" here. They don't get freed. There will
>> be at most one entry per row in pg_attribute where atthasmissing is
>> true.
> Yeah. My feeling is that as long as we don't make duplicate hashtable
> entries, there will never be so many entries that it'd be worth the
> cost and intellectual complexity of trying to clean them up. When
> and if that theory is disproven, we can think harder; but for now
> I think this approach is good enough.
>
>
Fix pushed to all relevant branches.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-08-22 20:10:44 | Re: pg_dump assertion failure with "-n pg_catalog" |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2023-08-22 18:57:17 | BUG #18067: Droping function that was used to generate column drops the column, even after `DROP EXPRESSION` |