Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SRF memory leaks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SRF memory leaks
Date: 2008-02-27 20:58:12
Message-ID: 8259.1204145892@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Negative refcount does not prove that the SRF itself hasn't
>> still got a pointer to the tupdesc.

> That sounds quite bizarre. The SRF has already finished execution at
> this point, so keeping a pointer to the tupledesc around would only make
> sense if you wanted to use that tupledesc on a *subsequent* invocation
> of the SRF.

Hmm ... actually I was worried about it being embedded in the returned
tuplestore, but I see tuplestore doesn't currently use a tupdesc at all,
so maybe it isn't that big a problem.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-02-27 21:07:46
Subject: Re: DTrace probe patch for OS X Leopard
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-02-27 20:47:52
Subject: Re: DTrace probe patch for OS X Leopard

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group