From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc
In-reply-to: <20190410110922.GE2728@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoYd3vqd26RiT4sp7Mez3oQf-AxAzdBpEeTyCNF-7OchhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <12316.1552504492@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoacZD_WWWQ+_Fx93rGeSri=rzXO1SQ7XbW1BSns8DCh5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <14279.1552508314@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <036852f2-ba7f-7a1f-21c6-00bc3515eda3@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <bac37617-9e25-becf-00f3-d9c1007b9983@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <29436.1554731961@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmob=HVg+tvF5XyWW060K3XJsc-y1JdTOAVXk6zLGkHGQiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190410064220.GD2728@paquier.xyz>
 <3f025355-b6d2-e2ec-ead1-d1eafa5e73fd@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20190410110922.GE2728@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:09:22 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <31026.1555083744.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:42:24 -0400
Message-ID: <31027.1555083744@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 05:03:21PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> The problem lies in all branches that have partitioning, so it should be
>> listed under Older Bugs, right?  You may have noticed that I posted
>> patches for all branches down to 10.

> I have noticed.  The message from Tom upthread outlined that an open
> item should be added, but this is not one.  That's what I wanted to
> emphasize.  Thanks for making it clearer.

To clarify a bit: there's more than one problem here.  Amit added an
open item about pre-existing leaks related to rd_partcheck.  (I'm going
to review and hopefully push his fix for that today.)  However, there's
a completely separate leak associated with mismanagement of rd_pdcxt,
as I showed in [1], and it doesn't seem like we have consensus about
what to do about that one.  AFAIK that's a new bug in 12 (caused by
898e5e329) and so it ought to be in the main open-items list.

This thread has discussed a bunch of possible future changes like
trying to replace copying of relcache-provided data structures
with reference-counting, but I don't think any such thing could be
v12 material at this point.  We do need to fix the newly added
leak though.

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/10797.1552679128%40sss.pgh.pa.us