Re: SRF memory leaks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SRF memory leaks
Date: 2008-02-26 08:13:24
Message-ID: 27109.1204013604@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 21:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I find this part of the patch to be a seriously bad idea.

> AFAICS this is not true of any of the SRFs in the backend, which always
> return expendable tupdescs.

"It's OK in the built-in SRFs" is disastrously different from "It's OK".

It was never specified that SRFs had to return a free-able tupdesc,
so I think it's a lead pipe cinch that there are some out there that
don't. Nor would it be their fault if we change the specification.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2008-02-26 08:17:49 Re: SRF memory leaks
Previous Message Neil Conway 2008-02-26 08:01:54 Re: SRF memory leaks