| From: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix plpgsql to release SPI plans when a function or DO block is |
| Date: | 2011-03-31 09:30:29 |
| Message-ID: | 4D9449B5.4070000@wulczer.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 31/03/11 07:35, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 30.03.2011 21:21, Jan Urbański wrote:
>> Valgrind showed me the way. PFA a trivial patch to avoid leaking a
>> PLyProcedure struct in inline blocks.
>
> Hmm, any reason the PLyProcedure struct needs to be allocated in
> TopMemoryContext in the first place? Could you palloc0 it in a
> shorter-lived context, or even better, just allocate it in stack?
Yeah, you're right, you can keep it on the stack.
> PS. I don't think the volatile qualifier in 'proc' is in necessary. The
> variable is not changed in PG_TRY-block.
That always confuses me, but I guess you're right, the variable does not
change, only the memory it points to.
Cheers,
Jan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-31 09:43:01 | pgsql: Don't leak the temporary PLyProcedure struct we create for inlin |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-31 07:20:08 | pgsql: Reword the phrase on zero replication_timeout in the docs. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-31 09:43:26 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix plpgsql to release SPI plans when a function or DO block is |
| Previous Message | 高增琦 | 2011-03-31 08:46:10 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take four |