Re: PATCH: Memory leaks on start-up

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PATCH: Memory leaks on start-up
Date: 2003-07-22 14:39:38
Message-ID: 6637.1058884778@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> I'd have to disagree with regards to the memory leaks not being worth
> a mention - any such leak can cause problems when the PostgreSQL
> installation is either unattended, long-living andor has very high
> connection levels.

I don't see how. We are talking about two strings, no more, no less,
that live for exactly the duration of the postmaster run. Explain to me
how any of your above conditions will affect this code in the slightest?

If UnlinkLockFile ever got invoked before postmaster exit, then this
would be worth doing, and I'll accept the change as a matter of
future-proofing that routine against such use. But on the argument of
preventing resource leakage today, this is just a waste of code space.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-07-22 14:55:55
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-07-22 14:31:36 Re: CVS: compilation failed

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2003-07-22 15:32:58 Re: Release.sgml markup
Previous Message Lee Kindness 2003-07-22 14:26:55 Re: PATCH: Memory leaks on start-up