> On 23 Feb 2025, at 13:03, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 at 07:49, Kirill Reshke wrote:
>> So, are we +1 or -1 on moving this forward?
>
> +1 from me. Marked as ready for committer.
Agreed, I have it on my TODO for the week to revisit.
./daniel
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 at 07:49, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> So, are we +1 or -1 on moving this forward?
+1 from me. Marked as ready for committer.
Hi!
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 13:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> That being said, there is
> value in doing the right thing and setting good examples in our own code as
> many do read it and reference it.
> We call PQclear on such a
> case elsewhere in the file so it's not entirely consistent, but
> On 7 Feb 2025, at 08:04, Saladin <312199...@qq.com> wrote:
>
> Dear pgsql-hackers,
>
> While reviewing the code of pg_amcheck, I discovered a potential issue that
> could lead to a memory leak. Specifically, there is a missing PQclear(result)
> call before the database connection is disconnec
Dear pgsql-hackers,
While reviewing the code of pg_amcheck, I discovered a potential issue
that could lead to a memory leak. Specifically, there is a
missing PQclear(result) call before the database connection is
disconnected, which could leave the query result unfreed.
To resolve this,
