| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fix and improve allocation formulas |
| Date: | 2025-12-12 09:53:32 |
| Message-ID: | aTvmHFsAXkW0ab5F@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 11:43:27AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> And before that, you'd have to get consensus that sizeof(*var) *is*
> the preferred style. I for one don't like it a bit. IMO what it
> mostly accomplishes is to remove a cue as to what we are allocating.
> I don't agree that it removes a chance for error, either. Sure,
> if you write
>
> foo = palloc(sizeof(typeA))
>
> when foo is of type typeB*, you made a mistake --- but we know how
> to get the compiler to warn about such mistakes, and indeed the
> main point of the palloc_object() changes was to catch those.
> However, suppose you write
>
> foo = palloc(sizeof(*bar))
>
> I claim that's about an equally credible typo, and there is
> nothing that will detect it.
Yeah, I'd prefer something where we keep track of the type, with the
extra layer that enforces a cast to the type of the variable like
palloc_object/array macros. The latter style of specifying a variable
pointer within the sizeof is more error-prone long-term, so it's not
something I think we should encourage.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2025-12-12 10:03:29 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Chengpeng Yan | 2025-12-12 09:50:38 | Re: Add a greedy join search algorithm to handle large join problems |