Re: Fix memory leak in gist_page_items() of pageinspect

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix memory leak in gist_page_items() of pageinspect
Date: 2025-12-19 04:29:51
Message-ID: aUTUvyvhdP29svQf@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 08:01:54AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 11:57:13AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Please note that for hash_bitmap_info() and pgstathashindex() the open calls are
> > changed instead. For those we keep the IS_INDEX() checks to reject partitioned
> > indexes (which index_open() accepts via validate_relation_kind()). So, that also
> > changes the error messages in some tests. If we do prefer the previous error
> > messages we could change the close calls instead (I prefer the way it's done
> > in the attached though).
>
> I have noticed that the two surrounding relation_close() calls for the
> parent tables did not get the notice of the change for brin.c of what
> you are doing for the indexes, while we use table_open(). I have
> fixed these.

Nice catch, thanks!

> It would be nicer if IS_INDEX() could be removed in the other code
> paths you are suggesting to change, but the partitioned index argument
> also means that we would have two code paths in charge of a relkind
> check instead of one. Just using relation_*() may be cleaner.

Yeah, and removing IS_INDEX() and adding a check for partitioned indexes would
still mean 2 code paths. So, v2 changes the close calls (and that's consistent
with what pgstatginindex_internal() is doing.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Use-relation_close-more-consistently.patch text/x-diff 1.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shveta malik 2025-12-19 04:34:53 Re: Logical Replication of sequences
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2025-12-19 04:25:03 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication