Re: Safe memory allocation functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Safe memory allocation functions
Date: 2015-01-15 14:55:08
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaVHNf3k=6Drq8ZGcuVfgjvGNA3k6osM0G8Ep0CX8B7Sg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2015-01-15 08:40:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I do think that "safe" is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail()
>> or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe().
>
> palloc_or_null()?

That'd work for me, too.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Timmer, Marius 2015-01-15 15:05:54 Re: [PATCH] explain sortorder
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-01-15 14:54:23 Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts