On 01/29/2015 06:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes:
>> On 01/29/2015 05:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure if
>> it would actually be better that way though; it's not clear to me how
>> the fuzzy search limit should interact with the fast scan code.
>
> Yeah, it might be better but it's not very clear what the implications
> are. Probably shouldn't touch that as part of an emergency bug fix.
Committed and backpatched a minimal fix.
For master and 9.4, I'm thinking of applying the attached. It makes it
clear that startScan() is not used to re-start a scan with existing scan
keys, but is always called on a newly initialized scan keys.
It also plugs the obvious leaking of the arrays. I'll look at the other
memory leaks separately, but this seems appropriate for 9.4.
- Heikki
