Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3886-c3611917295@github.com>
From: "davecramer (@davecramer)" <noreply+davecramer@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 12:08:41 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] PR #3886: fix: avoid memory leaks in Java <= 21 caused by Thread.inheritedAccessControlContext
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3886@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3886@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: davecramer
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 3611917295
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Issue: 3886
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/3886#issuecomment-3611917295
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

> > What happens if ForkJoinPool.commonPool() is unavailable (custom security manager)?
> 
> Frankly, I do not think it is a real scenario.
> 
> > No handling for RejectedExecutionException from execute()
> 
> Frankly, `commonPool()` should not reject unless it shuts down. I think we should not add workarounds for RejectedExecutionException.

Fair enough. After giving this more thought I really do think we should consider leaving the code as is and providing a multi-release jar that targets java 9+. I would imagine most folks that are running into the memory leak issue are using Java 9 or greater