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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
