Re: bug in GUC

Ok, so I'm a newbie. To my defence I'll say that I made an effort to follow
the style previously used in guc.c. The unchecked mallocs I added where not
the first ;-)

So, what you are saying is that there's no need for the functions I
suggested and that a palloc using the TopMemoryContext will guarantee
correct behavior on "out of memory"?

Kind regards,

Thomas Hallgren

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in message
news:13534(dot)1088085728(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us(dot)(dot)(dot)
> "Thomas Hallgren" <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com> writes:
> > Rather than clutter the code with the same ereport over and over again
(I
> > count 12 malloc's in guc.c alone), I'd like something like this:
>
> The larger question is why it contains even one. In general, use of
> malloc in the backend is the mark of a newbie. I'd think palloc in
> TopMemoryContext would be a more suitable approach.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>