On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 17:56 +1100, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> Should be just six extra lines (patch attached, untested).
Applied to HEAD, with an additional fix: you need to clear "result5" as
well. I didn't bother applying it to backbranches, on the grounds that a
memory leak in psql is not serious.
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 17:56 +1100, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> It certainly isn't pretty. It's been a long time since I looked down
> the barrel of a 'goto'.
I don't think there's anything wrong with using "goto" for error
handling in this style. Personally, I think the main stylistic problem
is that t
On 11/7/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it crucial that result sets be cleared before going out of scope?
It sounds like it'd leak memory inside psql; but realistically that's
probably not an enormous problem for this usage. How much uglif
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it crucial that result sets be cleared before going out of scope?
It sounds like it'd leak memory inside psql; but realistically that's
probably not an enormous problem for this usage. How much uglification
of the code are we talking about to fix it
