Re: [PATCH] Allow complex data for GUC extra.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow complex data for GUC extra.
Date: 2025-12-30 01:44:45
Message-ID: 3253965.1767059085@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> One notable behavioral change: check hooks using GUC_EXTRA_IS_CONTEXT
> now use palloc() instead of guc_malloc(). The old approach with
> guc_malloc() allowed check hooks to return false on OOM, letting the
> caller handle it at the appropriate error level. With palloc() an OOM
> throws an immediate ERROR. This seemed like an acceptable tradeoff

Why? It seems both inconsistent and unsafe.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message zengman 2025-12-30 01:49:36 Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
Previous Message Chao Li 2025-12-30 01:38:19 Re: [PATCH] Add memory usage reporting to VACUUM VERBOSE