| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new function dsa_allocate0. |
| Date: | 2017-02-17 16:41:13 |
| Message-ID: | 21143.1487349673@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm thinking we should change this to look more like the
> MemoryContextAlloc interface. Let's have DSA_ALLOC_HUGE,
> DSA_ALLOC_NO_OOM, and DSA_ALLOC_ZERO, just like the corresponding
> MCXT_* flags, and a function dsa_allocate_extended() that takes a
> flags argument. Then, dsa_allocate(x,y) can be a macro for
> dsa_allocate_extended(x,y,0) and dsa_allocate0(x,y) can be a macro for
> dsa_allocate_extended(x,y,DSA_ALLOC_ZERO). What this goof on my (and
> Dilip's) part illustrates to me is that having this interface behave
> significantly differently from the MemoryContextAlloc interface is
> going to cause mistakes.
+1
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-02-17 20:14:33 | pgsql: pg_dump: Fix typo in query |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-02-17 13:57:58 | pgsql: Remove redundant coverage target |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-02-17 17:17:35 | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-02-17 16:39:49 | Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |