Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~)
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoAv8s0ZZ_mNQahPKhofQzLGmMx=BmpTXiE6W0v=Qq_8iA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~)  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 6:26 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 07:50:57AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > The difference between fix_memory_leak_v2 and fix_memory_leak_v3 is
> > that the earlier one resets the pubctx to NULL along with freeing the
> > context memory. Resetting a file-level global variable is a good idea,
> > similar to what we do for RelationSyncCache, so I prefer v2 over v3,
> > but I am fine if you would like to proceed with v3.
>
> FWIW, I am not OK with v3.  I've raised this exact point a couple of
> days ago upthread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z1t5pXsNEYwS4P5k@paquier.xyz
>
> v2 does not have these weaknesses by design.

I agree that v2 is better than v3 in terms of that.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Add CASEFOLD() function.