| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Rick Otten <rottenwindfish(at)gmail(dot)com>, ronan(dot)dunklau(at)dalibo(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: your mail |
| Date: | 2017-08-08 22:12:35 |
| Message-ID: | 25045.1502230355@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-08-08 17:12:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> And it would cause a lot of code that *doesn't* assume that to fail,
>> too. That has basically nothing to do with not being in a transaction,
>> so I don't think it would be helpful here.
> Wouldn't mostsuch code be a bad idea anyway?
No, not really. You're right that a palloc appearing directly in a
_PG_init function is a bit dubious, but that doesn't mean that _PG_init
can't call anything that allocates memory. Also, since _PG_init is by
definition only called once per process, I do not think that authors
need to be rapped on the knuckles if they leak a small amount of
TopMemoryContext memory.
In any case, the result of doing that would only be that people would
throw in MemoryContextSwitchTo calls, it wouldn't discourage them from
trying to do catalog accesses for instance.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-08 22:35:32 | Re: 9.6.3 - Backend Crash - Parallel Worker Prepared Statements |
| Previous Message | Jarred Ward | 2017-08-08 21:56:53 | 9.6.3 - Backend Crash - Parallel Worker Prepared Statements |