On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mar abr 26 15:06:51 -0300 2011: > >> I tried to look around for other executor nodes that might >> have the same problem. I didn't see any obvious leaks, although index >> scan node seems to call AM's getnext without resetting the memory >> context in between. That's a pretty well-tested codepath, however, and >> there hasn't been any complains of leaks with index scans, so there must >> be something that mitigates it. > > Don't we have some rule that functions used in index AMs are supposed to > be leak-free?
btree operators and opclass functions are supposed to be leak-free. I think other AMs don't try to have the same strictness. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
