I found this thread on the open CF. As I see, the discussion is ended
with decision to reject patch.
I've just changed the status to "Rejected".
02.07.2016 18:11, Dirk Rudolph:
Well that's good to know. It was just curious that, in my case, I only
saw this in this particular function.
Anywa
Well that's good to know. It was just curious that, in my case, I only saw
this in this particular function.
Anyway. I will consider to handle the memory the same way, if this is the
recommendation.
Many thanks.
/Closed
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dirk Rudolph writes:
>
Dirk Rudolph writes:
> while implementing my own C function, I mentioned that some memory is not
> freed by the text_overlay function in varlena.c
By and large, that's intentional. SQL-called functions normally run
in short-lived memory contexts, so that any memory they don't bother to
pfree wi
Hi,while implementing my own C function, I mentioned that some memory is not freed by the text_overlay function in varlena.cParticularly I mean the both substrings allocated by text_substring (according to the documentation of text_substring "The result is always a freshly palloc'd datum.") and one
