Re: minor leaks in pg_dump (PG tarball 10.6)
| От | Pavel Raiskup |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: minor leaks in pg_dump (PG tarball 10.6) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1757475.ZK10eePKrr@nb.usersys.redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: minor leaks in pg_dump (PG tarball 10.6) (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: minor leaks in pg_dump (PG tarball 10.6)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 4:59:18 PM CET Stephen Frost wrote: > This change doesn't seem to make any sense to me..? If anything, seems > like we'd end up overallocating memory *after* this change, where we > don't today (though an analyzer tool might complain because we don't > free the memory from it and instead copy the pointer from each of these > items into the tbinfo structure). Correct, I haven't think that one through. I was confused that some items related to the dropped columns could be unreferenced. But those are anyways allocated as a solid block with others (not intended to be ever free()'d). Feel free to ignore that. Thanks for looking at this! Pavel
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: