Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Amit Langote > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> Your patch seems to be a much better solution to the problem, thanks.
> Does anyone wish to object to this patch as untimely? > If not, I'll commit it. It's certainly not untimely to address such problems. What I'm wondering is if we should commit both patches. Avoiding an unnecessary heap_open is certainly a good thing, but it seems like the memory leak addressed by the first patch might still be of concern in other scenarios. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers