Re: Memory leak with XLogFileCopy since de768844 (WAL file with .partial)

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Memory leak with XLogFileCopy since de768844 (WAL file with .partial)
Date: 2015-06-08 18:04:45
Message-ID: CAHGQGwFv-LUQGcwHs3j33io3CXvNRO2CXn19hqR8rzJHsC0moQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Why don't we call InstallXLogFileSegment() at the end of XLogFileCopy()?
>> If we do that, the risk of memory leak you're worried will disappear at all.
>
> Yes, that looks fine, XLogFileCopy() would copy to a temporary file,
> then install it definitely. Updated patch attached.

Thanks for updating the patch! Looks good to me. Applied.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-06-08 18:18:22 Re: [CORE] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-06-08 17:52:55 Re: Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags