From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_malloc0() instead of pg_malloc()+memset() |
Date: | 2019-03-26 09:14:46 |
Message-ID: | Uw3w7SS-WJhjOpf3Q0uLVIhwaIntwW0huKXwOz2fYQhu-QK59oRtaFOhJLezUcYC7uhnwd0ja5MujX7FHLOQG3CUH-akiGRaxJJwCTngDNw=@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:00 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 01:18:05PM +0000, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > When reading another codepath, I happened to notice a few codepaths where we do
> > pg_malloc() immediately followed by a memset( .. 0, ..), without there being a
> > justification (that I can see) for not using pg_malloc0() instead. The attached
> > patch changes to pg_malloc0(), and passes make check.
>
> If we simplify all of them (and that's not really a big deal), I have
> spotted two extra places on top of what you noticed, one in gist.c
> where ROTATEDIST is defined and a second one in tablefunc.c.
Nice, I had missed them as I my eyes set on pg_malloc(). I've done another pass over
the codebase and I can't spot any other on top of the additional ones you found where
MemSet() in palloc0 is preferrable over memset().
cheers ./daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2019-03-26 09:26:31 | Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-03-26 09:12:05 | Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums |