| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API |
| Date: | 2022-09-12 13:49:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1607236.1662990573@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 09.09.22 22:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think serious consideration should be given to back-patching the
>> 0001 part (that is, addition of the macros). Otherwise we'll have
>> to remember not to use these macros in code intended for back-patch,
>> and that'll be mighty annoying once we are used to them.
> Yes, the 0001 patch is kept separate so that we can do that when we feel
> the time is right.
I think the right time is now, or at least as soon as you're
satisfied that the buildfarm is happy.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2022-09-12 14:00:07 | Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-09-12 13:18:00 | Re: pg_stat_statements locking |