On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 09:48, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:10:43AM +0800, Japin Li wrote:
>> Yeah, we should take care of the backpatch risk. However, I think
>> it makes sense to backpatch.
>
> We are talking about 256 bytes being leaked in each loop when a
> validation pattern or when a query fails, so I don't see a strong
> argument in manipulating 10~14 more than necessary for this amount of
> memory. The contents of describe.c are the same for v15 though, and
> we are still in beta on REL_15_STABLE, so I have applied the patch
> down to v15, adding what Alvaro has sent on top of the rest.
Thanks for the explanation! IMO, we could ignore v10-13 branches, however,
we should backpatch to v14 which also uses the validateSQLNamePattern()
function leading to a memory leak.
--
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.
