On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:14 PM Bharath Rupireddy > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:39 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 3. The patch doesn't seem to be freeing the memory allocated for > > > missingattsbuf. > > > > > > > I don't think we need to do that. We are passing missingattsbuf.data to > > ereport and we are safe without freeing up missingattsbuf(we don't reach > > the code after ereprot(ERROR,...)as the table sync worker anyways goes away > > after throwing missing attributes error( if (sigsetjmp(local_sigjmp_buf, 1) > > != 0) in StartBackgroundWorker and then proc_exit(1)). Each time a new > > table sync bg worker is spawned. > > > > Okay, by that logic, we don't even need to free memory for missingatts. > > I have made a few changes, (a) moved free of missingatts in the caller > where we are allocating it. (b) added/edited/removed comments, (c) ran > pgindent. >
Thanks Amit. v8 patch looks good to me. > > Shall we backpatch this? I don't see any particular need to backpatch > this as this is a minor error message improvement and nobody has > reported any problem due to this. What do you think? > IMO, no backpatch is required as this is not a bug or something reported by anyone. With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
