On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 7:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > Okay, then let's go with a per-retry memory context approach. > > @@ -579,6 +579,8 @@ drop_local_obsolete_slots(List *remote_slot_list) > local_slot->data.database)); > } > } > + > + list_free(local_slots); > } > > Why do we need this retail pfree if the caller is using memory context? >
I see that the latest patch in email [1] has already addressed this point. So, I'll push the v2 version.
Thanks. My original reasoning for adding the pfree here was to act as a safety guard in case other future callers might not manage the memory properly. But Zhijie pointed out that this double-free pattern is not favored in previous community discussions. I'll post the worst-case test and its results later.
