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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
