| 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: | 2022-09-12 06:53:53 |
| Message-ID: | 6133fd6f-609a-68b1-1cae-056bbbb8baad@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09.09.22 22:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I have updated this patch set to rename the _obj() functions to
>> _object(), and I have dropped the _ptrtype() variants.
>
>> I have also split the patch to put the new API and the example uses into
>> separate patches.
>
> This patch set seems fine to me, so I've marked it Ready for Committer.
committed
> 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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-09-12 07:00:29 | Re: Assertion failure in WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable state machine |
| Previous Message | bt22kawamotok | 2022-09-12 06:53:46 | Re: [PATCH]Feature improvement for MERGE tab completion |