Thread: [HACKERS] [bug fix] dblink leaks unnamed connections
Hello,
dblink fails to close the unnamed connection as follows when a new unnamed connection is requested. The attached patch
fixesthis.
postgres=# select count(*) from pg_stat_activity;
count
-------
1
(1 row)
postgres=# select dblink_connect('dbname=postgres');
dblink_connect
----------------
OK
(1 row)
postgres=# select count(*) from pg_stat_activity;
count
-------
2
(1 row)
postgres=# select dblink_connect('dbname=postgres');
dblink_connect
----------------
OK
(1 row)
postgres=# select count(*) from pg_stat_activity;
count
-------
3
(1 row)
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Attachment
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > Hello, > > dblink fails to close the unnamed connection as follows when a new unnamed connection is requested. The attached patchfixes this. This issue was reported about ten years ago and added as TODO item. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00895.php I agree that this is a bug, and am tempted to back-patch to all the supported versions. But it had not been fixed in many years since the first report of the issue. So I'm not sure if it's ok to just treat this as a bug right now and back-patch. Or we should fix this only in HEAD? Anyway I'd like to hear more opinions about this. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> dblink fails to close the unnamed connection as follows when a new unnamed connection is requested. The attached patchfixes this. > This issue was reported about ten years ago and added as TODO item. > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00895.php > I agree that this is a bug, and am tempted to back-patch to all the supported > versions. But it had not been fixed in many years since the first report of > the issue. So I'm not sure if it's ok to just treat this as a bug right now and > back-patch. Or we should fix this only in HEAD? Anyway I'd like to hear > more opinions about this. It looks to me like the issue simply fell through the cracks because Joe wasn't excited about fixing it. Now that we have a second complaint, I think it's worth treating as a bug and back-patching. (I've not read this particular patch and am not expressing an opinion whether it's correct.) regards, tom lane
On 03/09/2017 07:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki >> <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> dblink fails to close the unnamed connection as follows when a new unnamed connection is requested. The attached patchfixes this. > >> This issue was reported about ten years ago and added as TODO item. >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00895.php > >> I agree that this is a bug, and am tempted to back-patch to all the supported >> versions. But it had not been fixed in many years since the first report of >> the issue. So I'm not sure if it's ok to just treat this as a bug right now and >> back-patch. Or we should fix this only in HEAD? Anyway I'd like to hear >> more opinions about this. > > It looks to me like the issue simply fell through the cracks because Joe > wasn't excited about fixing it. Now that we have a second complaint, > I think it's worth treating as a bug and back-patching. > > (I've not read this particular patch and am not expressing an opinion > whether it's correct.) Ok, will take another look. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
On 03/09/2017 08:31 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 03/09/2017 07:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki >>> <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>> dblink fails to close the unnamed connection as follows when a new unnamed connection is requested. The attached patchfixes this. >> >>> This issue was reported about ten years ago and added as TODO item. >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00895.php >> >>> I agree that this is a bug, and am tempted to back-patch to all the supported >>> versions. But it had not been fixed in many years since the first report of >>> the issue. So I'm not sure if it's ok to just treat this as a bug right now and >>> back-patch. Or we should fix this only in HEAD? Anyway I'd like to hear >>> more opinions about this. >> >> It looks to me like the issue simply fell through the cracks because Joe >> wasn't excited about fixing it. Now that we have a second complaint, >> I think it's worth treating as a bug and back-patching. >> >> (I've not read this particular patch and am not expressing an opinion >> whether it's correct.) > > Ok, will take another look. I pushed a fix to all supported branches. Thanks, Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development