Re: Memory leak in incremental sort re-scan

On 6/29/23 13:49, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 00:34 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 6/15/23 22:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>>> On 6/15/23 22:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> I see zero leakage in that example after applying the attached quick
>>>>> hack.  (It might be better to make the check in the caller, or to just
>>>>> move the call to ExecInitIncrementalSort.)
>>>
>>>> Thanks for looking. Are you planning to work on this and push the fix,
>>>> or do you want me to finish this up?
>>>
>>> I'm happy to let you take it -- got lots of other stuff on my plate.
>>
>> OK, will do.
> 
> It would be cool if we could get that into the next minor release in August.
> 

FWIW I've pushed the fix prepared by James a couple days ago. Thanks for
the report!


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company