Re: Fix minor memory leak in connection string validation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix minor memory leak in connection string validation
Date: 2024-01-13 03:18:55
Message-ID: 856130.1705115935@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 03:06:26PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> It makes me wonder if we should use the resowner mechanism to track
>> pointers to malloc'd memory. Then we could use a standard pattern for
>> these kinds of cases, and it would also catch more remote issues, like
>> if a pstrdup() fails in an error path (which can happen a few lines up
>> if the parse fails).

> That seems worth exploring.

I'm pretty dubious about adding overhead for that, mainly because
most of the direct callers of malloc in a backend are going to be
code that's not under our control. Modifying the callers that we
do control is not going to give a full solution, and could well be
outright misleading.

> Another option could be to surround this with PG_TRY/PG_FINALLY, but your
> patch seems sufficient, too.

Yeah, seems fine for now. If that function grows any more complexity
then we could think about using PG_TRY.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2024-01-13 04:35:52 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-01-13 02:37:05 Re: Fix minor memory leak in connection string validation