Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> On 06/18/2014 07:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> With the attached patch on top of yours, I see no leak anymore.
> I can confirm that -- rock solid with 1 million iterations. I assume
> that should not be back-patched though?
Well, we usually think memory leaks are back-patchable bugs. I'm
a bit worried about the potential performance impact of an extra
memory context creation/deletion though. It's probably not noticeable in
this test case, but that's just because dblink() is such a spectacularly
expensive function.
regards, tom lane