| 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: | 2022-09-14 04:53:06 |
| Message-ID: | 2524580.1663131186@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> It kind of feels that the argument order should be pointer, oldsize, size.
> It feels even more strongly that people will get the ordering wrong,
> whichever we choose. Is there a way to make that more bulletproof?
Actually ... an even-more-terrifyingly-plausible misuse is that the
supplied oldsize is different from the actual previous allocation.
We should try to check that. In MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING builds
it should be possible to assert that oldsize == requested_size.
We don't have that data if !MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING, but we could
at least assert that oldsize <= allocated chunk size.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-09-14 04:59:01 | Re: pg_basebackup's --gzip switch misbehaves |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2022-09-14 04:51:21 | Re: failing to build preproc.c on solaris with sun studio |