On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Amit Langote
>> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> Your patch seems to be a much better solution to the problem, thanks.
>
>> Does anyone wish to object to this patch as untimely?
>
>> If not, I'll commit it.
>
> It's certainly not untimely to address such problems. What I'm wondering
> is if we should commit both patches. Avoiding an unnecessary heap_open
> is certainly a good thing, but it seems like the memory leak addressed
> by the first patch might still be of concern in other scenarios.
I will defer to you on that. If you think that patch is a good idea,
please have at it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
