Em qui., 27 de ago. de 2020 às 12:46, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu:
> Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> writes: > > Is this something to worry about, or is it another problem with the > > analysis tool, that nobody cares about? > > As far as the first one goes, I'd bet on buggy analysis tool. > The complained-of allocation is evidently for the "extra" state > associated with the timezone GUC variable, and AFAICS guc.c is > quite careful not to leak those. It is true that the block will > still be allocated at process exit, but that doesn't make it a leak. > > I did not trace the second one in any detail, but I don't believe > guc.c leaks sourcefile strings either. There's only one place > where it overwrites them, and that place frees the old value. > > If these allocations do genuinely get leaked in some code path, > this report is of exactly zero help in finding where; and I'm > afraid I'm not very motivated to go looking for a bug that probably > doesn't exist. > Hi Tom, thanks for taking a look at this. I tried to find where the zone table is freed, without success. It would be a big surprise for me, if this tool is buggy. Anyway, it's just a sample of the total report, which is 10 mb (postmaster.log), done with the regression tests. regards, Ranier Vilela
