On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:31:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > This doesn't look quite right. Shouldn't we unconditionally release the
> > Tupledesc before the returns at lines 2118 and 2127, just as we do at
> > the bottom of the function at line 2285?
>
> I think Pavel's patch is probably OK as-is, because the tupdesc returned
> by get_call_result_type isn't reference-counted; but I agree the code
> would look cleaner your way. If the main exit isn't bothering to
> distinguish this then the early exits should not either.
>
> What I'm wondering about, though, is this bit at line 2125:
>
> /* same logic as for json */
> if (!have_record_arg && rec)
> PG_RETURN_POINTER(rec);
>
> If that's supposed to be the same logic as in the other path, then how
> is it that !have_record_arg has anything to do with whether the JSON
> object is empty? Either the code is broken, or the comment is.
Where are we on this?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
