| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Cary Huang <cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid memory leaks during base backups |
| Date: | 2022-10-20 17:47:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20221020174707.hlx4mfz4lzm66o5y@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Oct-20, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I think elsewhere in the code we reset dangling pointers either ways -
> before or after deleting/resetting memory context. But placing them
> before would give us extra safety in case memory context
> deletion/reset fails. Not sure what's the best way. However, I'm
> nullifying the dangling pointers after deleting/resetting memory
> context.
I agree that's a good idea, and the patch looks good to me, but I don't
think asserting that they are null afterwards is useful.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2022-10-20 18:09:00 | Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-10-20 17:35:19 | Re: Avoid memory leaks during base backups |