=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Zara?= <remi_zara(at)mac(dot)com> writes:
> The solution was to change the ulimit for data segment size.
Oh really ...
> Doesn't this mean that there is some place where the return value of
> malloc is not checked for null ?
You can see for yourself that the value *is* checked in the routine
that's at issue --- see line 520 in 8.2's aset.c. Also the gdb'ing
you did showed that a nonzero value had been returned.
I think what you're looking at is a platform-specific bug in malloc().
regards, tom lane