Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?

From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?
Date: 2025-08-19 20:49:06
Message-ID: CAGECzQT=xNV-V+vFC7YQwYQMj0wGN61b3p=J1_rL6M0vbjTtrA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 15:10, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Here's a new set of patches, to disconnect on OOM instead of hanging or
> silently discarding messages:

Code looks good. Som small nitpicks though.

This change seems unnecessary, i.e. free(NULL) is a no-op

- free(svname);
+ if (svname)
+ free(svname);

Small wording suggestion, maybe change this:

The caller has already saved the error message in conn->errorMessage.

to

The caller should have already saved the error message in conn->errorMessage.

or even

The caller should have already saved the error message using
libpq_append_conn_error.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sami Imseih 2025-08-19 20:52:33 Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2025-08-19 20:45:01 Re: A few patches to clarify snapshot management