From: | "Gaetano Mendola" <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: mcxt.c |
Date: | 2003-09-08 09:33:52 |
Message-ID: | 000e01c375ec$b1a491f0$27700b3e@mm.eutelsat.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Mendola Gaetano" <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> > A test for null string is missing here:
>
> > MemoryContextStrdup(MemoryContext context, const char *string)
> > {
> > char *nstr;
> > -
> > - if ( !string )
> > - {
> > - elog(ERROR, "MemoryContextStrdup called with a NULL pointer");
> > - return NULL;
> > - }
>
> This seems inappropriate to me. Are you going to suggest that every
> routine that takes a pointer parameter needs to explicitly test for
> null? We could bloat the code a great deal that way, and slow it down,
> without gaining anything at all in debuggability (IMHO anyway).
Of course I'm not suggesting this, what I'm suggesting is put an
assert( ) if the test can slow down the performances and an "if ( ) "
in places that are not going to touch the performances.
I think that is reasonable.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-09-08 10:52:26 | Re: Unixware 713 probs |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2003-09-08 09:31:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christoph Dalitz | 2003-09-08 10:27:05 | Re: [PATCHES] WIN32_CONSOLE usage |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2003-09-08 09:31:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |