From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan de Visser <jan(at)de-visser(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Idea: closing the loop for "pg_ctl reload" |
Date: | 2015-03-02 17:44:40 |
Message-ID: | 6225.1425318280@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan de Visser <jan(at)de-visser(dot)net> writes:
> On March 2, 2015 09:50:49 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, you could and should use pg_malloc0, which takes care of that
>> for you...
> I am (using pg_malloc, that is). So, just to be sure: pg_malloc memsets the
> block to 0, right?
No, it doesn't, but pg_malloc0 does. Consult the code if you're confused:
src/common/fe_memutils.c
> My question was more along the lines if memsetting to 0 to ensure that pointer
> fields are NULL and int/long fields are 0.
Yes, we do assume that widely, and so does a heck of a lot of other code.
In principle the C standard doesn't require that a NULL pointer be
all-zero-bits, only that casting "0" to a pointer yield a NULL pointer.
But certainly there are no modern implementations that don't represent
NULL as 0. Anybody who tried to do it differently would soon find that
hardly any real-world C code would run on their platform.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-02 17:45:18 | Re: Merge compact/non compact commits, make aborts dynamically sized |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-03-02 17:41:52 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |