Re: Safe memory allocation functions

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Yes, this refactoring was good for testing actually...
> Oops, I have been too hasty when sending previous patch, there was a
> bug related to huge allocations. Patch correcting this bug is
> attached.

Committed. I didn't think we really need to expose two separate flags
for the aligned and unaligned cases, so I ripped that out. I also
removed the duplicate documentation of the new constants in the
function header; having two copies of the documentation, one far
removed from the constants themselves, is a recipe for them eventually
getting out of sync. I also moved the function to what I thought was
a more logical place in the file, and rearranged the order of tests
slightly so that, in the common path, we test only whether ret == NULL
and not anything else.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company