| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API |
| Date: | 2022-10-11 15:48:33 |
| Message-ID: | b12fdb4b-fecb-e768-69a8-f2c4b997e903@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.09.22 06:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> It kind of feels that the argument order should be pointer, oldsize, size.
>> It feels even more strongly that people will get the ordering wrong,
>> whichever we choose. Is there a way to make that more bulletproof?
>
> Actually ... an even-more-terrifyingly-plausible misuse is that the
> supplied oldsize is different from the actual previous allocation.
> We should try to check that. In MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING builds
> it should be possible to assert that oldsize == requested_size.
> We don't have that data if !MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING, but we could
> at least assert that oldsize <= allocated chunk size.
I'm not very familiar with MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING. Where would one get
these values?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-10-11 16:03:48 | Re: Make EXPLAIN generate a generic plan for a parameterized query |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-10-11 15:11:39 | Re: Warning about using pg_stat_reset() and pg_stat_reset_shared() |