If the project policy is to ignore leaks in short-lived binaries, why
are those known cases not listed explicitly in an LSan suppression file
(for example, see attached patch)?
Disabling leak detection globally with detect_leaks=0 also hides leaks
that may be relevant in long-running processes. Explicit suppressions
would document the intentionally ignored cases while preserving LSan
coverage for the rest of the code.
Regards,
Ivan
On 26-07-22 01:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> None of the changes proposed in the patch are worth caring about. The
> only memory leaks I would care about in the frontend binaries are
> those where we could run a tool in an infinite loop where the
> non-freed would bloat. One example of that is pg_receivewal without
> --no-loop, that could be used as a service to get WAL from a remote
> source.
> --
> Michael
--
Best wishes,
Ivan Kush
Tantor Labs LLC
