Re: Fix and improve allocation formulas

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix and improve allocation formulas
Date: 2025-12-11 15:39:55
Message-ID: o3rr5kphfvnaj22h7uge2ng4lga54r3z7tpitaxtzrwihw4m4i@onss5zjjbj27
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2025-12-11 13:27:56 +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> - 0002 is a very large patch. I think that it provides added value as mentioned
> above but I'm not sure it is worth the noise. Anyway it is done, so sharing
> here to get your thoughts.

I find the recent trend to sent auto-generated huge patches to the list
... not great. I think there's practially zero chance of them getting applied
and it takes away mental bandwidth from stuff that has a chance.

I tend to agree that what you propose is the better style, but I seriously
doubt that

a) changing over everything at once is worth the backpatch hazard and review
pain
b) that to judge whether we should do this a 277kB patch is useful
c) that changing the existing code should be the first thing, if we want to
make this the new style, we should first document the sizeof(*var) approach to
be preferred.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-12-11 15:46:54 Re: regex Quantifiers {m,n}, m can be negative, n greater than 255
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-12-11 15:32:26 Re: Consistently use palloc_object() and palloc_array()