From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com)" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [bug fix] dblink leaks unnamed connections |
Date: | 2017-03-09 15:54:11 |
Message-ID: | 20926.1489074851@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>> dblink fails to close the unnamed connection as follows when a new unnamed connection is requested. The attached patch fixes this.
> This issue was reported about ten years ago and added as TODO item.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00895.php
> I agree that this is a bug, and am tempted to back-patch to all the supported
> versions. But it had not been fixed in many years since the first report of
> the issue. So I'm not sure if it's ok to just treat this as a bug right now and
> back-patch. Or we should fix this only in HEAD? Anyway I'd like to hear
> more opinions about this.
It looks to me like the issue simply fell through the cracks because Joe
wasn't excited about fixing it. Now that we have a second complaint,
I think it's worth treating as a bug and back-patching.
(I've not read this particular patch and am not expressing an opinion
whether it's correct.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-09 15:59:02 | Re: use SQL standard error code for nextval |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2017-03-09 15:47:37 | Parallel Bitmap scans a bit broken |