On 29.09.22 06:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> While this seems a future-proof idea, I wonder if it might be overkill
> since we don't need to worry about accumulation of leaked memory in
> this case. Given that only check_cluter_name is the case where we
> found a small memory leak, I think it's adequate to fix it.
>
> Fixing this issue suppresses the valgrind's complaint but since the
> boot value of cluster_name is "" the memory leak we can avoid is only
> 1 byte.
I have committed this. I think it's better to keep the code locally
robust and not to have to rely on complex analysis of how GUC memory
management works.
