| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Hot standby |
| Date: | 2008-11-22 09:44:40 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0811220144k718e4bbfy98d123051d2d0c21@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> The malloc was part of the existing code, explained by comments.
>
>
Oh I see. But I don't see any explanations for using malloc instead of
palloc. Not that the current patch is responsible for this, I am wondering
why its done that way and if we are freeing the malloced memory at all ?
malloc is used at another place in a new code. Although it seems that the
allocation happens just once, please check if its better to use palloc
there.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-22 09:46:23 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-22 09:28:52 | Re: How should pg_standby get over the gap of timeline? |