| From: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Memory leak fix in psql |
| Date: | 2022-07-21 06:02:49 |
| Message-ID: | MEYP282MB1669B709D7414717C33E8F18B6919@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 09:48, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:10:43AM +0800, Japin Li wrote:
>> Yeah, we should take care of the backpatch risk. However, I think
>> it makes sense to backpatch.
>
> We are talking about 256 bytes being leaked in each loop when a
> validation pattern or when a query fails, so I don't see a strong
> argument in manipulating 10~14 more than necessary for this amount of
> memory. The contents of describe.c are the same for v15 though, and
> we are still in beta on REL_15_STABLE, so I have applied the patch
> down to v15, adding what Alvaro has sent on top of the rest.
Thanks for the explanation! IMO, we could ignore v10-13 branches, however,
we should backpatch to v14 which also uses the validateSQLNamePattern()
function leading to a memory leak.
--
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-07-21 06:04:30 | Re: Fwd: Unprivileged user can induce crash by using an SUSET param in PGOPTIONS |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-07-21 05:54:49 | Re: Remove useless arguments in ReadCheckpointRecord(). |