Re: dblink memory leak

Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> Given that change, is there even any leak to even worry about? As long
>> as the PGresult object is created in the correct memory context, it
>> ought to get cleaned up automatically, no?
>
> No, because libpq knows nothing of backend memory contexts; it just
> allocates with malloc. You'll still need a PG_TRY block to ensure you
> release PGresults during error cleanup. The change to using tuplestores
> will just help you localize that requirement in well-defined places.

I should have known that! Thanks for the wack on the head...

>> I can't promise to make this change before 15 October, but I will get to
>> it before the end of CF3.
>
> No big hurry, I think, considering the leak has always been there.

Great. It seems like this is too invasive a change to backport. My
feeling is that not enough people have complained about this specific
scenario to warrant the risk.

Joe