| 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 |
| 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 |