| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, duspensky(at)ya(dot)ru, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #16160: Minor memory leak in case of starting postgres server with SSL encryption |
| Date: | 2021-03-16 18:12:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20210316181226.hj6jicxtqveokjyv@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
(replying here because Jelte's email doesn't yet seem to have gone
through moderation)
On 2021-03-16 13:36:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> writes:
> > I'm pretty sure it was the only cause in this specific case. When running
> > postgres with valgrind this was the only block that was repeatedly being
> > leaked.
I wonder if it'd be worth starting to explicitly annotate all the places
that do allocations and are fine with leaking them. E.g. by introducing
malloc_permanently() or such. Right now it's hard to use valgrind et al
to detect leaks because of all the false positives due to such "ok to
leak" allocations.
I sometimes think that we're not great at spotting leak errors because
we're so used to things getting cleaned up in case of error due to
memory contexts...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-03-16 18:44:55 | Re: BUG #16160: Minor memory leak in case of starting postgres server with SSL encryption |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-16 18:03:34 | Re: BUG #16160: Minor memory leak in case of starting postgres server with SSL encryption |