| 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
| 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() |