| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SRF memory leaks |
| Date: | 2008-02-27 20:58:12 |
| Message-ID: | 8259.1204145892@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Negative refcount does not prove that the SRF itself hasn't
>> still got a pointer to the tupdesc.
> That sounds quite bizarre. The SRF has already finished execution at
> this point, so keeping a pointer to the tupledesc around would only make
> sense if you wanted to use that tupledesc on a *subsequent* invocation
> of the SRF.
Hmm ... actually I was worried about it being embedded in the returned
tuplestore, but I see tuplestore doesn't currently use a tupdesc at all,
so maybe it isn't that big a problem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-02-27 21:07:46 | Re: DTrace probe patch for OS X Leopard |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-02-27 20:47:52 | Re: DTrace probe patch for OS X Leopard |