On 3/4/16 1:53 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >>> That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static", >>> and why >>> I wrote "some hidden awkwarness". >>> >>> I did want to avoid a malloc because then who would free the struct? >>> addScript cannot to it systematically because builtins are static. Or it >>> would have to create an on purpose struct, but I then that would be more >>> awkwarness, and malloc/free to pass arguments between functions is not >>> efficient nor very elegant. >>> >>> So the "static" option looked like the simplest & most elegant version. >> >> Surely that trick breaks if you have more than one -f switch, no? Oh, I >> see what you're doing: you only use the command list, which is >> allocated, so it doesn't matter that the rest of the struct changes >> later. > > The two fields that matter (desc and commands) are really copied into > sql_scripts, so what stays in the is overriden if used another time. > >> I'm not concerned about freeing the struct; what's the problem with it >> surviving until the program terminates? > > It is not referenced anywhere so it is a memory leak. > >> If somebody specifies thousands of -f switches, they will waste a few >> bytes with each, but I'm hardly concerned about a few dozen kilobytes >> there ... > > Ok, so you prefer a memory leak. I hate it on principle. > > Here is a v23 with a memory leak anyway.
Álvaro, it looks like you've been both reviewer and committer on this work for some time. The latest patch seems to address you final concern. Can I mark it "ready for committer"? -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers