Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Heikki, I found something odd in your patch. You had an extra
> parentheses at the end of the line in the orginal and new version of the
> patch (attached). I removed it before applying, but I just wanted to
> confirm this was OK.
Looking at the CVS history, it looks like Tom changed that piece of code
recently in this commit:
> revision 1.110
> date: 2007-01-30 22:05:12 +0000; author: tgl; state: Exp; lines: +88 -21;
> Repair oversights in the mechanism used to store compiled plpgsql functions.
> The original coding failed (tried to access deallocated memory) if there were
> two active call sites (fn_extra pointers) for the same function and the
> function definition was updated. Also, if an update of a recursive function
> was detected upon nested entry to the function, the existing compiled version
> was summarily deallocated, resulting in crash upon return to the outer
> instance. Problem observed while studying a bug report from Sergiy
> Vyshnevetskiy.
>
> Bug does not exist before 8.1 since older versions just leaked the memory of
> obsoleted compiled functions, rather than trying to reclaim it.
Note that the condition in the if-clause is now the other way round, and
the delete_function call is now in the else-branch. Did you get that
right in your commit?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
