On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 7:53 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On 29.09.22 06:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > While this seems a future-proof idea, I wonder if it might be overkill > > since we don't need to worry about accumulation of leaked memory in > > this case. Given that only check_cluter_name is the case where we > > found a small memory leak, I think it's adequate to fix it. > > > > Fixing this issue suppresses the valgrind's complaint but since the > > boot value of cluster_name is "" the memory leak we can avoid is only > > 1 byte. > > I have committed this. I think it's better to keep the code locally > robust and not to have to rely on complex analysis of how GUC memory > management works.
Thanks! Agreed. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
