Re: Missing llvm_leave_fatal_on_oom() call

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Missing llvm_leave_fatal_on_oom() call
Date: 2023-07-04 16:33:10
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 21 Feb 2023, at 15:50, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> llvm_release_context() calls llvm_enter_fatal_on_oom(), but it never calls llvm_leave_fatal_on_oom(). Isn't that a clear leak?

Not sure how much of a leak it is since IIUC LLVM just stores a function
pointer to our error handler, but I can't see a reason not clean it up here.
The attached fix LGTM and passes make check with jit_above_cost set to zero.

Daniel Gustafsson

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-07-04 16:52:03 Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2023-07-04 15:33:05 Re: Creation of an empty table is not fsync'd at checkpoint