On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

I will defer to you on that.  If you think that patch is a good idea,
please have at it.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to