Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b12fdb4b-fecb-e768-69a8-f2c4b997e903@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API
|
Список | 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?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: