Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was planning to do it right now, on the grounds that #2 and #3 are bug
>> fixes, and that fixing the existing memory leakage hazard is a good
>> thing too.
> I am OK with doing it now, but calling it a bug fix seems like a
> stretch. ;-)
How so? The lack of a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS was reported as a bug to
start with; it was only while investigating that that we realized there
was a memory-leak hazard, but that doesn't make the latter less real.
regards, tom lane
