On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 09:48, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 09:10:43AM +0800, Japin Li wrote: >> Yeah, we should take care of the backpatch risk. However, I think >> it makes sense to backpatch. > > We are talking about 256 bytes being leaked in each loop when a > validation pattern or when a query fails, so I don't see a strong > argument in manipulating 10~14 more than necessary for this amount of > memory. The contents of describe.c are the same for v15 though, and > we are still in beta on REL_15_STABLE, so I have applied the patch > down to v15, adding what Alvaro has sent on top of the rest.
Thanks for the explanation! IMO, we could ignore v10-13 branches, however, we should backpatch to v14 which also uses the validateSQLNamePattern() function leading to a memory leak. -- Regrads, Japin Li. ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.
