| 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: | 2022-10-11 16:04:20 |
| Message-ID: | 417848.1665504260@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 14.09.22 06:53, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> I'm not very familiar with MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING. Where would one get
> these values?
Hmm ... the individual allocators have that info, but mcxt.c doesn't
have access to it. I guess we could invent an additional "method"
to return the requested size of a chunk, which is only available in
MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING builds, or maybe in !MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING
it returns the allocated size instead.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Koval | 2022-10-11 16:21:54 | Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-10-11 16:03:48 | Re: Make EXPLAIN generate a generic plan for a parameterized query |