On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Combining this with my idea about preserving the ConfigVariable list, > I'm thinking that it would be a good idea for ProcessConfigFile() to > run in a context created for the purpose of processing the config files, > rather than blindly using the caller's context, which is likely to be > a process-lifespan context and thus not a good place to leak in. > We could keep this context around until the next SIGHUP event, so that > the ConfigVariable list remains available, and then destroy it and > replace it with the next ProcessConfigFile's instance of the context. > In this way, any leakage in the processing code could not accumulate > over multiple SIGHUPs, and so it would be certain to remain fairly > negligible.
That seems like a nice idea. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
