On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 7:53 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 29.09.22 06:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > While this seems a future-proof idea, I wonder if it might be overkill
> > since we don't need to worry about accumulation of leaked memory in
> > this case. Given that only check_cluter_name is the case where we
> > found a small memory leak, I think it's adequate to fix it.
> >
> > Fixing this issue suppresses the valgrind's complaint but since the
> > boot value of cluster_name is "" the memory leak we can avoid is only
> > 1 byte.
>
> I have committed this. I think it's better to keep the code locally
> robust and not to have to rely on complex analysis of how GUC memory
> management works.
Thanks! Agreed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com