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

Re: SRF memory leaks

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SRF memory leaks
Date: 2008-02-26 08:17:49
Message-ID: 1204013869.12305.18.camel@goldbach (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 03:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "It's OK in the built-in SRFs" is disastrously different from "It's OK".

Right, I never said that, I was just commenting on your view that the
predominant use-case for SRFs is returning refcounted tupdescs.

You didn't comment on my proposed solution (FreeTupleDesc() iff refcount
== -1). ISTM that we *need* to free the TupleDesc in at least some
cases, in order to defend against the practice of explicitly allocating
the TupleDesc in the per-query context.


In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-02-26 08:53:51
Subject: Re: lc_time and localized dates
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-02-26 08:13:24
Subject: Re: SRF memory leaks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group