Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:02:24 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>,
	"ranier.vf@gmail.com" <ranier.vf@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Small memory fixes for pg_createsubcriber
Message-ID: <Z71c8G3UicHgoTAD@paquier.xyz>
References: <CAEudQAp=AW5dJXrGLbC_aZg_9nOo=42W7uLDRONFQE-gcgnkgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <68d6d810-4ef1-4f62-b47f-89b21501249b@app.fastmail.com>
 <obqvpv4yx57lbnfiqvy4pmnfi2l5wn6xzoq2ftytxa426pa226@2sc46frt5xtb>
 <3337507.1739376124@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <xseczrku4nm3p4rujapxiiuttpqrpagkbwrr2nlbnmwemh525y@3he54emhpqha>
 <Z601RQxTmIUohdkV@paquier.xyz>
 <3490963.1739405311@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <Z616FUBfX5uRYsOc@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kDEENstXGTlT16hj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Z616FUBfX5uRYsOc@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z71c8G3UicHgoTAD%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--kDEENstXGTlT16hj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 01:50:29PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 07:08:31PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I spent a little time earlier today seeing what I could do with the
>> use-dmalloc patch I posted earlier.  It turns out you can get through
>> initdb after s/free/PQfreemem/ in just two places, and then the
>> backend works fine.  But psql is a frickin' disaster --- there's
>> free's of strings made with PQExpBuffer all over its backslash-command
>> handling, and no easy way to clean it up.  Maybe other clients will
>> be less of a mess, but I'm not betting on that.
>=20
> Hmm.  Okay.  It sounds like it would be better to group everything
> that has been pointed together towards what should be a more generic
> solution than what I have posted.  So I am holding on touching
> anything.

Two weeks later.  Would there be any objections for doing something in
the lines of [1] for pg_upgrade and pg_amcheck?  The pg_upgrade bit is
a bit strange, for sure, still it's better than the current state of
things.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z601RQxTmIUohdkV@paquier.xyz
--
Michael

--kDEENstXGTlT16hj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=rs0r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--kDEENstXGTlT16hj--