[5.8] Fix memory leak in JOIN queries #28220
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
driesvints
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2019
|
Thanks @staudenmeir |
|
Maybe it would have been better to have these attributes as private as well to make it possible to fix future bugs without breaking change? |
|
@deleugpn We are only using private properties in very few places (probably not on purpose) and I think we should keep it like that. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Every
JoinClauseinstance receives and stores the parent query. The instance itself then gets stored in the parent query's$joinsproperty. This circular reference causes a memory leak and can be an issue for long-running scripts.We can fix it by storing the parent query's connection, grammar, processor and class name separately instead of the whole query instance.
The removed
$parentQueryproperty was private, so this shouldn't be a breaking change.Fixes #28195.