| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Henrik TJ <henrik(at)0x48(dot)dk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use pg_malloc macros in src/fe_utils |
| Date: | 2026-02-27 10:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | aaFrIB0JXMyXcVoC@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 02:15:46AM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> 1. What should we do about when we allocate a an array of characters? Would
> it make sense to use pg_array_alloc() or would that jsut be silly? For
> example:
>
> -pad = (char *) pg_malloc(l + 1);
> +pad = pg_malloc_array(char, l + 1);
I can see that tar_get_file_name() has been changed in 0001, which is
fine, so I have merged the change from 0002 in
dir_get_file_name()@walmethods.c into 0001, for consistency. I don't
really have a strong opinion about the rest of 0002, TBH.
> 2. I found a small and harmless thinko. The buffer in verify_tar_file() is
> actually a char * but for some reason the code did the following:
>
> buffer = pg_malloc(READ_CHUNK_SIZE * sizeof(uint8));
>
> What should we do about it? Just skip the "sizof(uint8)"?
This one has already been discussed, see here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aUJ2zxgPCaVsVi2a@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
The story is a bit larger than this single allocation, as it impacts
the meaning of the surrounding routines with backup manifests.
And applied 0001 after double-checking it. Thanks.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Luzanov | 2026-02-27 10:04:02 | Re: Show comments in \dRp+, \dRs+, and \dX+ psql meta-commands |
| Previous Message | Madhav Madhusoodanan | 2026-02-27 09:54:37 | Re: [WiP] B-tree page merge during vacuum to reduce index bloat |