Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 28.03.2013 01:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs writes:
>>> I'm inclined to think that the overhead isn't worth the trouble. This
>>> is the only bug of its type we had in recent years.
>> I agree that checking for resource leaks after each WAL record seems
>> to
On 28.03.2013 01:01, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs writes:
On 27 March 2013 20:40, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
While looking at bug #7969, it occurred to me that it would be nice if we
could catch resource leaks in WAL redo routines better. It would be useful
during development, to catch bugs ear
On 27 March 2013 23:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 27 March 2013 20:40, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> While looking at bug #7969, it occurred to me that it would be nice if we
>>> could catch resource leaks in WAL redo routines better. It would be useful
>>> during development,
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 27 March 2013 20:40, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> While looking at bug #7969, it occurred to me that it would be nice if we
>> could catch resource leaks in WAL redo routines better. It would be useful
>> during development, to catch bugs earlier, and it could've turned t
On 27 March 2013 20:40, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> While looking at bug #7969, it occurred to me that it would be nice if we
> could catch resource leaks in WAL redo routines better. It would be useful
> during development, to catch bugs earlier, and it could've turned that
> replay-stopping err
