| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Memory leak in FDW |
| Date: | 2011-04-26 18:15:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1303841704-sup-5783@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mar abr 26 15:06:51 -0300 2011:
> I tried to look around for other executor nodes that might
> have the same problem. I didn't see any obvious leaks, although index
> scan node seems to call AM's getnext without resetting the memory
> context in between. That's a pretty well-tested codepath, however, and
> there hasn't been any complains of leaks with index scans, so there must
> be something that mitigates it.
Don't we have some rule that functions used in index AMs are supposed to
be leak-free?
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-04-26 18:30:23 | Re: Proposal - asynchronous functions |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-04-26 18:06:51 | Memory leak in FDW |