* Andres Freund (andres@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2013-06-04 16:23:00 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > I can't get too excited about the overhead of a single palloc here. It's a
> > fairly heavy operation anyway, and only runs once per checkpoint. And we
> > haven't heard any actual complaints of latency hiccups with
> > wal_level=hot_standby.
Perhaps, but we don't always hear about things that we should- this long
standing memory leak being one of them.
> Seems more consistent with the rest of the code too. But anyway, I am
> fine with fixing it either way.
And this is really the other point- having LogStandbySnapshot() need to
clean up after GetRunningTransactionLocks() but not
GetRunningTransactionData() would strike me as very odd.
Thanks,
Stephen
