On 2013-01-08 15:45:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > To what extent do you want palloc et al. emulation? Provide actual pools
> > or just make redirect to malloc and provide the required symbols (at the
> > very least CurrentMemoryContext)?
> 
> I don't see any need for memory pools, at least not for frontend
> applications of the currently envisioned levels of complexity.  I concur
> with Alvaro's suggestion about just #define'ing them to malloc/free ---
> or maybe better, pg_malloc/free so that we can have a failure-checking
> wrapper.

Unless we want to introduce those into common headers, its more complex
than #define's, you actually need to provide at least
palloc/pfree/CurrentMemoryContext symbols.

Still seems like a shame to do that for one lonely pfree() (+ something
an eventual own implementation of relpathbackend().

> Not sure how we ought to handle elog, but maybe we can put off that bit
> of design until we have a more concrete use-case.

Agreed.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

• Re: [PATCH 2/5] Make relpathbackend return a statically result instead of palloc()'ing it at 2013-01-08 20:45:07 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2013-01-08 21:11:41
	Subject: Re: pg_upgrade regression test litters the source tree with log files
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2013-01-08 21:08:42
	Subject: Re: pg_upgrade regression test litters the source tree with log files