Re: json_populate_record issue - TupleDesc reference leak - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: json_populate_record issue - TupleDesc reference leak
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBncGmy-HXx76cYmcnsbYQE4UJ1T4JoiW1QVJS=rG5VEg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: json_populate_record issue - TupleDesc reference leak  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: json_populate_record issue - TupleDesc reference leak
List pgsql-hackers
Still issue is not fixed still

create type pt as (a int, b int);
postgres=# select json_populate_record('(10,20)'::pt, '{}');
WARNING:  TupleDesc reference leak: TupleDesc 0x7f413ca325b0 (16560,-1) still referenced


2015-04-30 14:32 GMT+02:00 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:31:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > This doesn't look quite right. Shouldn't we unconditionally release the
> > Tupledesc before the returns at lines 2118 and 2127, just as we do at
> > the bottom of the function at line 2285?
>
> I think Pavel's patch is probably OK as-is, because the tupdesc returned
> by get_call_result_type isn't reference-counted; but I agree the code
> would look cleaner your way.  If the main exit isn't bothering to
> distinguish this then the early exits should not either.
>
> What I'm wondering about, though, is this bit at line 2125:
>
>               /* same logic as for json */
>               if (!have_record_arg && rec)
>                       PG_RETURN_POINTER(rec);
>
> If that's supposed to be the same logic as in the other path, then how
> is it that !have_record_arg has anything to do with whether the JSON
> object is empty?  Either the code is broken, or the comment is.

Where are we on this?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: json_populate_record issue - TupleDesc reference leak
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing tuple overhead