Thanks a lot! The memory leak was plugged for some time (not fixed
correctly; but it wasn't a memory leak because the trace system didn't
use a regular hash map). I messed up when I fixed it, because I didn't
add a test case.
Now I added a test case to detect the memory leak, and I fixed the
bug. This will be available in the next release.
Thanks a lot again for your help!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group.
> To post to this group, send email to h2-da...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to h2-database...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
> In trunk, the trace system seems to use a plain HashMap instead of a
> SmallLRUCache as I wrote in the previous mail (according to the change
> log of the repository, the container of traces changed on Nov 12,
> Isn't there any risk of a memory leak?
Not any more, because the list of entries in the map is now limited.
It was always supposed to be limited, so the SmallLRUCache should
never have been used. It was used, so the actual bug (the forgotten
return) didn't have an effect.
The real problem is that there was no test case for the memory leak so far.