| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | m(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump: fix memory leak |
| Date: | 2025-08-29 07:49:02 |
| Message-ID: | DD787428-D933-4598-BFB6-11CC37F12811@yesql.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 29 Aug 2025, at 09:36, m(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson wrote 2025-08-29 10:13:
>> This is not actually a leak since the application will terminate immediately if
>> a restrict key cannot be generated.
> I agree that the current usage of the function does not present a problem, but there is no certainty that this situation will remain unchanged.
I certainly hope it won't change, ignoring a failure from pg_strong_random() is
a seriously bad idea. If the function is rewritten to change its errorhandling
then allocation might be changed, right now there is no leak and no bug.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-08-29 08:15:08 | Trivial fix of code comment |
| Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2025-08-29 07:41:56 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |