Re: Safe memory allocation functions

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Safe memory allocation functions
Date: 2015-01-15 23:47:10
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTEj5ftaxdt4PWFb3RDek4yTVNQdcZi__R2JzO1eSZGmg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I do think that "safe" is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail()
>> or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe().
>
> I liked palloc_noerror() better myself FWIW.
Voting for palloc_noerror() as well.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-01-15 23:57:13 Re: segmentation fault in execTuples.c#ExecStoreVirtualTuple
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2015-01-15 23:36:55 Re: PATCH: Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL