On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:02:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But having said that, I would not be in a hurry to remove any existing
>> if-guards for the case. For one thing, it makes the code look more
>> similar to backend code that uses palloc/pfree, where we do *not* allow
>> pfree(NULL). There's also the point that changing longstanding code
>> creates back-patching hazards, so unless there's a clear gain it's best
>> not to.
>
> Makes sense, but there is no point in adding hos if-guards to old code that
> doesn't have it either,right?
In any case, whatever the final decision done here, I just wanted to
point out that there is still a leak in connect.c. Per se the attached
patch, that does not check for a NULL pointer before ecpg_free because
other code paths in the routine patched don't do so. So you get
something locally consistent ;)
--
Michael
