On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 1:01 PM Xuneng Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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. >
Pushed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
