Robert Haas wrote: > Hmm, I understood Tom to be opposing the idea of a palloc variant that > returns NULL on failure, and I understand you to be supporting it. > But maybe I'm confused.
Your understanding seems correct to me. I was just saying that your description of Tom's argument to dislike the idea seemed at odds with what he was actually saying. > Anyway, I support it. I agree that there are > systems (or circumstances?) where malloc is going to succeed and then > the world will blow up later on anyway, but I don't think that means > that an out-of-memory error is the only sensible response to a palloc > failure; returning NULL seems like a sometimes-useful alternative. > > I do think that "safe" is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail() > or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe(). I liked palloc_noerror() better myself FWIW. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
