On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:45 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:39 AM Zhihong Yu <z...@yugabyte.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 3:05 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> > >> Zhihong Yu <z...@yugabyte.com> writes: > >> >> I was looking at calls to bms_free() in PG code. > >> >> e.g. src/backend/commands/publicationcmds.c line 362 > >> >> bms_free(bms); > >> >> The above is just an example, there're other calls to bms_free(). > >> >> Since the bms is allocated from some execution context, I wonder why > this > >> >> call is needed. > >> >> > >> >> When the underlying execution context wraps up, isn't the bms freed ? > >> > >> Yeah, that's kind of pointless --- and the pfree(rfnode) after it is > even > >> more pointless, since it'll free only the top node of that expression > >> tree. Not to mention the string returned by TextDatumGetCString, and > >> whatever might be leaked during the underlying catalog accesses. > >> > >> If we were actually worried about transient space consumption of this > >> function, it'd be necessary to do a lot more than this. It doesn't > >> look to me like it's worth worrying about though -- it doesn't seem > >> like it could be hit more than once per query in normal cases. > >> > >> regards, tom lane > > > > > > Thanks Tom for replying. > > > > What do you think of the following patch ? > > > > Your patch looks good to me. I have found one more similar instance in > the same file and changed that as well accordingly. Let me know what > you think of the attached? > > -- > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > Hi, Amit: The patch looks good to me. Cheers
