| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Consistently use palloc_object() and palloc_array() |
| Date: | 2025-12-03 00:40:46 |
| Message-ID: | 534126.1764722446@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> It may be a good idea to split the patch into two parts, at least:
> - One for the bulk of the changes, for the straight-forward changes.
> Most of what you are suggesting are that for palloc_object and
> palloc_array which are dropped-in replacements. Checking that these
> assemble the same before and after offers one extra layer of
> confidence.
> - Second one for the more dubious changes.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Some of those might perhaps be bugs
that we want to back-patch, so they need to be looked at in a
different way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-12-03 00:47:35 | Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-12-03 00:35:52 | Re: Consistently use palloc_object() and palloc_array() |