| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bound memory usage during manual slot sync retries |
| Date: | 2026-05-26 16:40:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1L=P+4hdnic8gQ1QFL9KZiM_mReCNTYWx99ct23mCoZ8g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 7:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Okay, then let's go with a per-retry memory context approach.
>
> @@ -579,6 +579,8 @@ drop_local_obsolete_slots(List *remote_slot_list)
> local_slot->data.database));
> }
> }
> +
> + list_free(local_slots);
> }
>
> Why do we need this retail pfree if the caller is using memory context?
>
I see that the latest patch in email [1] has already addressed this
point. So, I'll push the v2 version.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-05-26 16:53:03 | expand refint docs with usage info |
| Previous Message | Paul A Jungwirth | 2026-05-26 16:14:04 | Re: Fix bug of UPDATE/DELETE FOR PORTION OF with inheritance tables |