On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> pg_calloc (randomly different API for pg_malloc0) > >> Do we need this? > > I thought about getting rid of it, but there are some dozens of calls > scattered across several files, so I wasn't sure it was worth it. > Anybody else have an opinion?
I think having more than 1 function that does the same thing is generally a bad idea. It sounds like it is going to cause confusion and provide no real benefit. > >> I wonder whether the same set of functions should also be available in the >> backend with ereport(EC_OUT_OF_MEMORY, ...) behaviour as well. > > In the backend, you almost always ought to be using palloc instead. > The only places where it's really appropriate to be using malloc > directly are where you don't want an error thrown for out-of-memory. > So I think providing these in the backend would do little except to > encourage bad programming. > > regards, tom lane > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
