Re: DSA_ALLOC_NO_OOM doesn't work

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:49 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> That's fair, I can see those reasons. Nevertheless, I do think it was a
> bad tradeoff. A little bit of repetition would be better here, or we can
> extract the common parts to smaller functions.
>
> I came up with the attached:
>
> 25 files changed, 1710 insertions(+), 1113 deletions(-)
>
> So yeah, it's more code, and there's some repetition, but I think this
> is more readable. Some of that is extra boilerplate because I split the
> implementations to separate files, and I also added tests.

Adding tests is great. I'm unenthusiastic about the rest, but I don't
really care enough to argue.

What's the goal here, anyway? I mean, why bother?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com