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…
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
In response to
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|