Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management
| От | Joe Conway |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3D6EB2E6.1070902@joeconway.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs) (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)
Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs) |
| Список | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote: > You'll need to fix that anyway because the next ExecStoreTuple will try > to do an ExecClearTuple. Looks like the same tuple is being freed > twice. Once you've handed a tuple to ExecStoreTuple it's not yours to > free anymore; perhaps some bit of code in dblink has that wrong? That's just it: 0x40017273 in dblink_get_pkey (fcinfo=0xbfffe8e0) at dblink.c:911 *is* funcctx = SRF_PERCALL_SETUP(); which is is a macro #define SRF_PERCALL_SETUP() per_MultiFuncCall(fcinfo) When I remove the call to ExecClearTuple() from per_MultiFuncCall(), everything starts to work. As you said, if the next ExecStoreTuple will try to do an ExecClearTuple(), ISTM that it should be removed from per_MultiFuncCall()/SRF_PERCALL_SETUP(). Or am I crazy? Joe
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: