Re: --enable-thread-safety bug

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> Note this is your in application, not the server. Only your program
> died. Ofcourse the transaction got aborted, since the client (you)
> disconnected. There is no way for this to write to the server log,
> since it may be one another machine...

Right.  And note that if we don't have enough memory for the struct
that was requested, we *certainly* don't have enough to do anything
interesting.  We could try

    fprintf(stderr, "out of memory\n");
    exit(1);

but even that I would give only about 50-50 odds of success; and more
to the point, how is this any better for an application than a core
dump?  It's still summary termination.

> Do you create and destroy a lot of threads since it seems this memory
> won't be freed?

The OP's program isn't threaded at all, since he was apparently running
with a non-threaded ecpg/libpq before.  This means that the proposal of
looping till someone else frees memory is at least as silly as allowing
the core dump to happen.

            regards, tom lane