On 2013-01-08 15:45:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > To what extent do you want palloc et al. emulation? Provide actual pools > > or just make redirect to malloc and provide the required symbols (at the > > very least CurrentMemoryContext)? > > I don't see any need for memory pools, at least not for frontend > applications of the currently envisioned levels of complexity. I concur > with Alvaro's suggestion about just #define'ing them to malloc/free --- > or maybe better, pg_malloc/free so that we can have a failure-checking > wrapper.
Unless we want to introduce those into common headers, its more complex than #define's, you actually need to provide at least palloc/pfree/CurrentMemoryContext symbols. Still seems like a shame to do that for one lonely pfree() (+ something an eventual own implementation of relpathbackend(). > Not sure how we ought to handle elog, but maybe we can put off that bit > of design until we have a more concrete use-case. Agreed. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
