| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Safe memory allocation functions |
| Date: | 2015-01-16 14:08:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20150116140851.GC21581@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-01-16 08:47:10 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I do think that "safe" is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail()
> >> or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe().
> >
> > I liked palloc_noerror() better myself FWIW.
> Voting for palloc_noerror() as well.
I don't like that name. It very well can error out. E.g. because of the
allocation size. And we definitely do not want to ignore that case. How
about palloc_try()?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-01-16 14:13:37 | Re: Safe memory allocation functions |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-01-16 14:06:12 | Re: Safe memory allocation functions |