Re: Google SoC--Idea Request

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 11:56:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder if we shouldn't just remove the hash_destroy calls in
>> hash_create's failure paths. hash_destroy is explicitly not gonna
>> work on a shared-memory hashtable, and in all other cases I'd expect
>> that any already-allocated table structure will be in a palloc context
>> that will get cleaned up during error recovery.

> Any thoughts on this? Make it a TODO item, document it, or simply
> ignore it?

It's like a two-line patch, so hardly worth putting in TODO ... might
as well just do it. IIRC the motivation is mostly to silence a
Coverity warning?

regards, tom lane