On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> The malloc was part of the existing code, explained by comments.
>
>
Oh I see. But I don't see any explanations for using malloc instead of
palloc. Not that the current patch is responsible for this, I am wondering
why its done that way and if we are freeing the malloced memory at all ?
malloc is used at another place in a new code. Although it seems that the
allocation happens just once, please check if its better to use palloc
there.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com