Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> Your patch seems to be a much better solution to the problem, thanks.
> Does anyone wish to object to this patch as untimely?
> If not, I'll commit it.
It's certainly not untimely to address such problems. What I'm wondering
is if we should commit both patches. Avoiding an unnecessary heap_open
is certainly a good thing, but it seems like the memory leak addressed
by the first patch might still be of concern in other scenarios.
regards, tom lane
