Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRz2E-0002Sd-3S for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:42:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRz2C-0005Sd-9A for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:42:44 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRz2C-0005SW-3z for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:42:44 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRz29-0007Vq-Rp for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:42:43 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 09CEgRo53091771; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:42:27 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: bchen90@163.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #16666: Slight memory leak when running pg_ctl reload In-reply-to: <20201012141938.GB24889@momjian.us> References: <16666-2c41a4eec61b03e1@postgresql.org> <20201012141938.GB24889@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:19:38 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3091769.1602513747.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:42:27 -0400 Message-ID: <3091770.1602513747@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Bruce Momjian writes: > Uh, you are saying pg_ctl leaks memory or the database server leaks > memory? I don't see any memory allocation in the code you posted. I've not looked at the code yet, but I think the OP is worried that we need to free(newval) before these "return"s. regards, tom lane