Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: xmalloc => pg_malloc

From: Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: xmalloc => pg_malloc
Date: 2012-10-02 16:44:26
Message-ID: CADAkt-gv6GYV7Bt3vjzVTBsqtnnWtSs6P+Z9uRS4SkbtTRx9tA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> pg_calloc    (randomly different API for pg_malloc0)
>
>> Do we need this?
>
> I thought about getting rid of it, but there are some dozens of calls
> scattered across several files, so I wasn't sure it was worth it.
> Anybody else have an opinion?

I think having more than 1 function that does the same thing is
generally a bad idea. It sounds like it is going to cause confusion
and provide no real benefit.

>
>> I wonder whether the same set of functions should also be available in the
>> backend with ereport(EC_OUT_OF_MEMORY, ...) behaviour as well.
>
> In the backend, you almost always ought to be using palloc instead.
> The only places where it's really appropriate to be using malloc
> directly are where you don't want an error thrown for out-of-memory.
> So I think providing these in the backend would do little except to
> encourage bad programming.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2012-10-02 16:52:38
Subject: Re: xmalloc => pg_malloc
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-10-02 16:30:33
Subject: Re: xmalloc => pg_malloc

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group