Re: SRF memory leaks - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SRF memory leaks
Date
Msg-id 27109.1204013604@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SRF memory leaks  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Responses Re: SRF memory leaks  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
List pgsql-patches
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 21:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I find this part of the patch to be a seriously bad idea.

> AFAICS this is not true of any of the SRFs in the backend, which always
> return expendable tupdescs.

"It's OK in the built-in SRFs" is disastrously different from "It's OK".

It was never specified that SRFs had to return a free-able tupdesc,
so I think it's a lead pipe cinch that there are some out there that
don't.  Nor would it be their fault if we change the specification.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: SRF memory leaks
Next
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: SRF memory leaks