On 2026-03-09 Mo 8:40 AM, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2026-Mar-09, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 11:21:35AM +0800, yangyz wrote:
>>> I think it should be modified.
>>>
>>> Move createPQExpBuffer inside the conditional block to match its destroy counterpart.
>>> This improves code clarity and satisfies static analyzers, even though the actual memory
>>> leak is minimal in practice.
>> destroyPQExpBuffer() is called for each tuple from pg_database except
>> if dealing with "template{0,1}" or "postgres". It means that we would
>> just leak a few bytes for these three cases. I agree that the
>> variable declaration can be placed better, but it's really not worth
>> bothering in this context.
> True, but at the same time it looks as if this routine is wastefully
> written -- I mean, why spend time with a stringinfo here at all? We
> could write this in much simpler form, as in the attached, which is even
> three lines shorter. In fact, before 763aaa06f034, this is exactly how
> this routine was written, and I don't see why it was changed this way.
>
I forget why, but your change looks good. Do you want to apply it?
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
