Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> For the purpose here a limit of MaxTupleAttributeNumber or such instead of
> FUNC_MAX_ARGS would do the trick, I think?
As long as we have to change the code, we might as well remove the
arbitrary restriction.
> Should this be repalloc0? I don't know if the palloc0 above was just used with
> the goal of initializing the "header" fields, or also to avoid trailing
> uninitialized bytes?
I think probably the palloc0 was mostly about belt-and-suspenders
programming. But yeah, its only real value is to ensure that all
the header fields are zero, so I don't think we need repalloc0
when enlarging. After we set the array size at the end of the
loop, it'd be a programming bug to touch any bytes beyond that.
regards, tom lane
