On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mar abr 26 15:06:51 -0300 2011:
>
>> I tried to look around for other executor nodes that might
>> have the same problem. I didn't see any obvious leaks, although index
>> scan node seems to call AM's getnext without resetting the memory
>> context in between. That's a pretty well-tested codepath, however, and
>> there hasn't been any complains of leaks with index scans, so there must
>> be something that mitigates it.
>
> Don't we have some rule that functions used in index AMs are supposed to
> be leak-free?
btree operators and opclass functions are supposed to be leak-free. I
think other AMs don't try to have the same strictness.
--
greg
