On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The malloc was part of the existing code, explained by comments. > > Oh I see. But I don't see any explanations for using malloc instead of palloc. Not that the current patch is responsible for this, I am wondering why its done that way and if we are freeing the malloced memory at all ? malloc is used at another place in a new code. Although it seems that the allocation happens just once, please check if its better to use palloc there. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
