| From: | "Gangadharan S(dot)A(dot)" <gangadharan(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | "psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org" <psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: "double free" segfault back in pyscopg2 2.5 | 
| Date: | 2013-06-20 15:47:02 | 
| Message-ID: | -5211100401285290505@unknownmsgid | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg | 
Thanks! Yes, this change should fix the issue - and it did in my testing.
Do we know of a rough esitmate on when this will be released as a version?
On 20-Jun-2013, at 9:12 PM, Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 19:34 +0530, Gangadharan S.A. wrote:
>
>> The fix would be to call conn_close after untracking the object in
>> connection_type.c:connection_dealloc().
>
> Pushed correction at
> https://github.com/dvarrazzo/psycopg/commit/889b1d826e9cf0ecbc9af938bad72937592af5e4
>
> Is this enough to consider the issue fixed?
>
> I've checked other destructors and we untrack the object before any
> other operation in all the objects.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --
> Daniele
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via psycopg mailing list (psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/psycopg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2013-06-20 15:54:48 | Re: "double free" segfault back in pyscopg2 2.5 | 
| Previous Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2013-06-20 15:42:21 | Re: "double free" segfault back in pyscopg2 2.5 |