Re: pg_dump vs malloc

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 17:48, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> >> Something along the line of this?
> >
> > I think this is a seriously, seriously bad idea:
> >
> >> +#define strdup(x) pg_strdup(x)
> >> +#define malloc(x) pg_malloc(x)
> >> +#define calloc(x,y) pg_calloc(x, y)
> >> +#define realloc(x,y) pg_realloc(x, y)
> >
> > as it will render the code unreadable to people expecting the normal
> > behavior of these fundamental functions; not to mention break any
> > call sites that have some other means of dealing with an alloc failure
> > besides going belly-up. ?Please take the trouble to do
> > s/malloc/pg_malloc/g and so on, instead.
>
> Ok, I'll try that approach. This seemed like a "nicer" approach, but I
> think once written out, i agree with your arguments :-)

Where are we on this?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +