On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 16:00 +0200, Vivien Malerba wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 14:11 +0200, Vivien Malerba wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > (This is in libgda-3.0. I haven't looked at this in trunk.) > > > > > > This only applies to V3, since for V4 the providers don't use that > > > object anymore (but the > > > global conception is almost the same). > > > > > > Each GdaDataModel implementation which inherits the GdaDataModelRow > > > class is repsonsible for managing its GdaRow objects, so the answer to > > > your question is no, don't unref() the GdaRow. > > > > Thanks. > > > > But the postgres provider really doesn't seem to be managing the rows > > that it creates. I think it's leaking the rows: > > > > http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/libgda/branches/release-3-0-branch/providers/postgres/gda-postgres-recordset.c?view=markup > > > > the get_row() always create a new GdaRow object, but (and I agree the > names are badly chosen) the get_row vfunc is implemented by the > gda_postgres_recordset_get_row() function which first checks that the > requested GdaRow object does not already exist before calling > get_row(). > > I don't think there is any mem leak there (simply strangely and > difficult to follow code)...
Ah, OK. Thanks. I do like code to have more comments. I'll see if I can get the same valgrind leak report from a C test case (I was using libgdamm). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gnome-db-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list
