Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi oct 27 18:18:06 -0300 2010:
>> I spent quite a bit of time trying to deal with the memory-leakage
>> problem without adding still more bookkeeping overhead.  It wasn't
>> looking good, and then I had a sudden insight: if we see that the in-use
>> flag is set, we can simply return FALSE from exec_eval_simple_expr.

> I tried the original test cases that were handed to me (quite different
> from what I submitted here) and they are fixed also.  Thanks.

It'd be interesting to know if there's any noticeable slowdown on
affected real-world cases.  (Of course, if they invariably crashed
before, there might not be a way to measure their previous speed...)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: crash in plancache with subtransactions at 2010-10-29 15:40:47 from Alvaro Herrera

Responses

• Re: crash in plancache with subtransactions at 2010-10-29 20:28:11 from Alvaro Herrera
• Re: crash in plancache with subtransactions at 2010-11-01 14:14:03 from Jim Nasby

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Marti Raudsepp	Date: 2010-10-29 16:25:03
	Subject: [PATCH] Cleanup: Compare pointers to NULL instead of 0
Previous:	From: Leonardo Francalanci	Date: 2010-10-29 15:41:18
	Subject: Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...