Re: Memory leak in FDW
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Memory leak in FDW |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTinT=g8n467apNRquXQ==Js2iaETcQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Memory leak in FDW (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mar abr 26 15:06:51 -0300 2011: > >> I tried to look around for other executor nodes that might >> have the same problem. I didn't see any obvious leaks, although index >> scan node seems to call AM's getnext without resetting the memory >> context in between. That's a pretty well-tested codepath, however, and >> there hasn't been any complains of leaks with index scans, so there must >> be something that mitigates it. > > Don't we have some rule that functions used in index AMs are supposed to > be leak-free? btree operators and opclass functions are supposed to be leak-free. I think other AMs don't try to have the same strictness. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: