Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


pgsql-patches by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group