Re: Memory leak in incremental sort re-scan

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Memory leak in incremental sort re-scan
Date: 2023-06-15 20:36:33
Message-ID: 2275724.1686861393@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 6/15/23 22:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I see zero leakage in that example after applying the attached quick
>> hack. (It might be better to make the check in the caller, or to just
>> move the call to ExecInitIncrementalSort.)

> Thanks for looking. Are you planning to work on this and push the fix,
> or do you want me to finish this up?

I'm happy to let you take it -- got lots of other stuff on my plate.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Jacobson 2023-06-15 21:05:38 Re: Do we want a hashset type?
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2023-06-15 20:30:58 Re: Memory leak in incremental sort re-scan