Re: dblink memory leak

Tom Lane wrote:
> Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> I think PG_TRY blocks are not enough, too. PG_TRY requires a statement
>> block, but we need to return from dblink functions per tuple.
>
> That bit will have to be undone. There is no reason for dblink not to
> return a tuplestore.

That's a really good point. It was originally written thinking we would
eventually be able to stream tuples rather than materialize them, but
given that many years have passed and we are no closer (I believe) to a
true streaming mode for SRFs, a tuplestore would be much cleaner.

Given that change, is there even any leak to even worry about? As long
as the PGresult object is created in the correct memory context, it
ought to get cleaned up automatically, no?

I can't promise to make this change before 15 October, but I will get to
it before the end of CF3.

Joe