Re: SRF memory leaks

Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
>           if (funcTupdesc)
> +         {
>               tupledesc_match(node->tupdesc, funcTupdesc);
> +             FreeTupleDesc(funcTupdesc);
> +         }
>       }

I find this part of the patch to be a seriously bad idea.
nodeFunctionscan has no right to assume that the function has returned
an expendable tupdesc; indeed, I would think that the other case is
more nearly what's expected by the API for SRFs.  We certainly daren't
backpatch such a change.

A safer fix would be to try to make the tupdesc be in the new
multi_call_ctx when it's being created by the funcapi.c code.

            regards, tom lane