Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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