From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Safe memory allocation functions |
Date: | 2015-01-16 15:09:25 |
Message-ID: | 20150116150925.GS1663@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:57 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.
>
> I don't care for noerror() because it probably still will error in
> some circumstances; just not for OOM.
Yes, but that seems fine to me. We have other functions with "noerror"
flags, and they can still fail under some circumstances -- just not if
the error is the most commonly considered scenario in which they fail.
The first example I found is LookupAggNameTypeNames(); there are many
more. I don't think this causes any confusion in practice.
Another precendent we have is something like "missing_ok" as a flag name
in get_object_address() and other places; following that, we could have
this new function as "palloc_oom_ok" or something like that. But it
doesn't seem an improvement to me. (I'm pretty sure we all agree that
this must not be a flag to palloc but rather a new function.)
Of all the ones you proposed above, the one I like the most is
palloc_no_oom, but IMO palloc_noerror is still better.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-01-16 15:21:02 | Error check always bypassed in tablefunc.c |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-16 14:56:37 | Re: Safe memory allocation functions |