Prev: [HACKERS] bug in integration SQL parser to plpgsq
Next: Clearing global statistics
From: Joe Conway on 12 Jan 2010 12:40
On 01/11/2010 07:43 PM, Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
> There is a memory leak in dblink when we cancel a query during
> returning tuples. It could leak a PGresult because memory used
> by it is not palloc'ed one. I wrote a patch[1] before, but I've
> badly used global variables to track the resource.
>
> The attached is a cleaned up patch rewritten to use a tuplestore
> (SFRM_Materialize mode) to return tuples suggested at [2]. Since
> we don't return from the dblink function in tuplestore mode, we
> can surely release the PGresult with a PG_CATCH block even on error.

Thanks -- I'll review this weekend.

Joe

From: Joe Conway on 21 Jan 2010 19:57
On 01/11/2010 07:43 PM, Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
> There is a memory leak in dblink when we cancel a query during
> returning tuples. It could leak a PGresult because memory used
> by it is not palloc'ed one. I wrote a patch[1] before, but I've
> badly used global variables to track the resource.
>
> The attached is a cleaned up patch rewritten to use a tuplestore
> (SFRM_Materialize mode) to return tuples suggested at [2]. Since
> we don't return from the dblink function in tuplestore mode, we
> can surely release the PGresult with a PG_CATCH block even on error.
>
> Also, dblink_record_internal() and dblink_fetch() are rearranged
> to share the same code to return tuples for code refactoring.
>
> [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-06/msg01358.php
> [2] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg00292.php

This looks good to me. I'll commit in the next 24 hours if there are no
objections.

Thanks,

Joe


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [HACKERS] bug in integration SQL parser to plpgsq
Next: Clearing global statistics