Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors
Date: 2026-06-20 07:45:55
Message-ID: ajZFM1XwbDpTQYZV@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 08:12:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 09:18:03AM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
>> Ah, thanks for correcting me. I'm not sure why I had ERROR in mind,
>> but you're obviously correct. Your patch v2 LGTM.
>
> Cool, thanks.

And done that as well. If we invent a new facility, I'd be curious to
see how this would apply here or to other parts of the backend. And
perhaps not only for initialization steps?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-06-20 07:49:59 Re: [PATCH] Fix two incorrect code comments
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-06-20 07:40:33 Compile warnings under -DMEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING and no assertions