From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PLy_malloc and plperl mallocs |
Date: | 2010-11-28 04:23:02 |
Message-ID: | 4CF1D926.70405@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/27/2010 10:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?=<wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> writes:
>> I noticed that PL/Python uses a simple wrapper around malloc that does
>> ereport(FATAL) if malloc returns NULL. I find it a bit harsh, don't we
>> normally do ERROR if we run out of memory?
>> And while looking at how PL/Perl does these things I find that one
>> failed malloc (in compile_plperl_function) throws an ERROR, and the rest
>> (in plperl_spi_prepare) are simply unguarded...
>> I guess PL/Python should stop throwing FATAL errors and PL/Perl should
>> get its own malloc_or_ERROR helper and start using that.
> The real question is why they're not using palloc instead.
>
>
Well, the stuff in plperl_spi_prepare needs to be allocated in a
long-lived context. We could use palloc in TopMemoryContext instead, I
guess.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-28 04:59:04 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove outdated comments from the regression test files. |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-11-28 04:18:58 | Re: profiling connection overhead |