Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Namely, that on platforms where malloc(0) returns NULL instead of
> a pointer to a zero-size block, pg_malloc thinks it's a failure
> and aborts the program.

What's the use case for malloc(0) anyway?

> 1. Teach pg_malloc not to complain if result == NULL and size == 0.

What about not calling malloc at all in such places? Well I guess what
you want is for the pg_malloc() API to be able to never return NULL…

> 2. Before the malloc call, have it replace size == 0 with size = 1.

As I don't understand the need to malloc 0 byte I would think that's ok
as a way to simplify code…

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

• pg_malloc() versus malloc(0) at 2012-10-01 14:00:46 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: pg_malloc() versus malloc(0) at 2012-10-01 14:45:38 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-10-01 14:36:52
	Subject: Re: Extending range of to_tsvector et al
Previous:	From: Magnus Hagander	Date: 2012-10-01 14:22:14
	Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements