| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 04:24:49 |
| Message-ID: | 3ba19edb-9cfb-0173-f185-cb72cfc3829c@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12.09.22 15:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On 09.09.22 22:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think serious consideration should be given to back-patching the
>>> 0001 part (that is, addition of the macros). Otherwise we'll have
>>> to remember not to use these macros in code intended for back-patch,
>>> and that'll be mighty annoying once we are used to them.
>
>> Yes, the 0001 patch is kept separate so that we can do that when we feel
>> the time is right.
>
> I think the right time is now, or at least as soon as you're
> satisfied that the buildfarm is happy.
This has been done.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-09-14 04:26:57 | Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-09-14 04:04:29 | Re: A small typo |