Re: Missing llvm_leave_fatal_on_oom() call - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Missing llvm_leave_fatal_on_oom() call
Date
Msg-id 4C71B939-B189-425F-9225-75F158D24856@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Missing llvm_leave_fatal_on_oom() call  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Responses Re: Missing llvm_leave_fatal_on_oom() call
List pgsql-hackers
> On 21 Feb 2023, at 15:50, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> llvm_release_context() calls llvm_enter_fatal_on_oom(), but it never calls llvm_leave_fatal_on_oom(). Isn't that a
clearleak? 

Not sure how much of a leak it is since IIUC LLVM just stores a function
pointer to our error handler, but I can't see a reason not clean it up here.
The attached fix LGTM and passes make check with jit_above_cost set to zero.

--
Daniel Gustafsson




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Creation of an empty table is not fsync'd at checkpoint
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()