| From: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "zhangjie2(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com" <zhangjie2(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "matsumura(dot)ryo(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com" <matsumura(dot)ryo(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: [PATCH] memory leak in ecpglib |
| Date: | 2019-06-11 06:35:36 |
| Message-ID: | OSAPR01MB20049FB3DB4734A8BC428171F5ED0@OSAPR01MB2004.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Zhang,
# I resend the email
Thank you for reporting a bug. I didn't care about this case.
>> We should free p->cursor_name before p->cursor_name =
>> ecpg_strdup(cursor_name, lineno).
I'm wondering whether this approach is correct or not.
If your patch is committed, in your example, any operation for cur1 will not be accepted.
My idea is changing ecpg_update_declare_statement() for permitting one-to-many relation between a declared name and cursors.
An example is as below:
p = ecpg_find_declared_statement(declared_name);
if (p && p->cursor_name == cursor_name)
p->cursor_name = ecpg_strdup(cursor_name, lineno);
Do you have any suggestions or comments for this?
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
Fujitsu LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-06-11 06:36:55 | Re: pgbench rate limiting changes transaction latency computation |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-06-11 06:11:15 | check_recovery_target_lsn() does a PG_CATCH without a throw |