> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 7:03 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Okay, then let's go with a per-retry memory context approach. > > > > @@ -579,6 +579,8 @@ drop_local_obsolete_slots(List *remote_slot_list) > > local_slot->data.database)); > > } > > } > > + > > + list_free(local_slots); > > } > > > > Why do we need this retail pfree if the caller is using memory context? > > > > I see that the latest patch in email [1] has already addressed this > point. So, I'll push the v2 version. > > [1] - > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABPTF7WB4Z62sPoZkhSygOCAo3OiTDLpMELxZDuwCb3HYgM_pQ%40mail.gmail.com
Thanks. My original reasoning for adding the pfree here was to act as a safety guard in case other future callers might not manage the memory properly. But Zhijie pointed out that this double-free pattern is not favored in previous community discussions. I'll post the worst-case test and its results later. Regards, Xuneng Zhou HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
