Horton

Re: Fix memory leak in gist_page_items() of pageinspect

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-12-18T23:01:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Use relation_close() more consistently in contrib/

  2. Use table/index_close() more consistently

  3. pageinspect: use index_close() for GiST index relation

On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 11:57:13AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Please note that for hash_bitmap_info() and pgstathashindex() the open calls are
> changed instead. For those we keep the IS_INDEX() checks to reject partitioned
> indexes (which index_open() accepts via validate_relation_kind()). So, that also
> changes the error messages in some tests. If we do prefer the previous error
> messages we could change the close calls instead (I prefer the way it's done
> in the attached though).

I have noticed that the two surrounding relation_close() calls for the
parent tables did not get the notice of the change for brin.c of what
you are doing for the indexes, while we use table_open().  I have
fixed these.

It would be nicer if IS_INDEX() could be removed in the other code
paths you are suggesting to change, but the partitioned index argument
also means that we would have two code paths in charge of a relkind
check instead of one.  Just using relation_*() may be cleaner.
--
Michael