Re: minor leaks in pg_dump (PG tarball 10.6) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Raiskup
Subject Re: minor leaks in pg_dump (PG tarball 10.6)
Date
Msg-id 1757475.ZK10eePKrr@nb.usersys.redhat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: minor leaks in pg_dump (PG tarball 10.6)  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: minor leaks in pg_dump (PG tarball 10.6)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 4:59:18 PM CET Stephen Frost wrote:
> This change doesn't seem to make any sense to me..?  If anything, seems
> like we'd end up overallocating memory *after* this change, where we
> don't today (though an analyzer tool might complain because we don't
> free the memory from it and instead copy the pointer from each of these
> items into the tbinfo structure).

Correct, I haven't think that one through.  I was confused that some items
related to the dropped columns could be unreferenced.  But those are
anyways allocated as a solid block with others (not intended to be ever
free()'d).  Feel free to ignore that.

Thanks for looking at this!
Pavel





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL