> > Hi,
> >
> > Thank you for your review. I understand your feedback – this was a result of my personal coding habit: I prefer to
>explicitly call `free_parsestate()`, and also want to respect the comment associated with `make_parsestate()` (shown
below):
> > ```
>
> As Robert Haas explained in a nearby thread, we usually don't accept
> patches that modify code for personal preferences. We instead follow
> precedence. Also the email proposing the patches should explain why
> those changes are being proposed, especially when they are more than
> trivial changes.
>
I understand, thank you very much for your guidance.
> > /*
> > * make_parsestate
> > * Allocate and initialize a new ParseState.
> > *
> > * Caller should eventually release the ParseState via free_parsestate().
> > */
> > ```
> > For this reason, I have made minor modifications to this section of the code.
> >
>
> Given that we have many other callers who do not call
> free_parsestate(), probably this should change, as a separate patch
> though. Maybe there is a pattern of when to call free_parsestate() and
> when not to. It will be good to add a clarifying comment here.
Yes, I completely agree with your suggestion.
--
regards,
Man Zeng
