| From: | Ivan Kush <ivan(dot)kush(at)tantorlabs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Fix memory leak in pg_config |
| Date: | 2026-07-22 11:54:17 |
| Message-ID: | 5718ea33-b246-45bd-bc79-8a77731d6c5a@tantorlabs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
If the project policy is to ignore leaks in short-lived binaries, why
are those known cases not listed explicitly in an LSan suppression file
(for example, see attached patch)?
Disabling leak detection globally with detect_leaks=0 also hides leaks
that may be relevant in long-running processes. Explicit suppressions
would document the intentionally ignored cases while preserving LSan
coverage for the rest of the code.
Regards,
Ivan
On 26-07-22 01:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> None of the changes proposed in the patch are worth caring about. The
> only memory leaks I would care about in the frontend binaries are
> those where we could run a tool in an infinite loop where the
> non-freed would bloat. One example of that is pg_receivewal without
> --no-loop, that could be used as a service to get WAL from a remote
> source.
> --
> Michael
--
Best wishes,
Ivan Kush
Tantor Labs LLC
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Add-LeakSanitizer-suppression-for-pg_config.patch | text/x-patch | 1.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | xiaoyu liu | 2026-07-22 11:55:50 | Re: Many of psql's describe functions bloat cache / waste mem |
| Previous Message | Ayush Tiwari | 2026-07-22 11:44:53 | Re: Proposal: INSERT ... BY NAME |