On 2015-01-16 08:47:10 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> 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. > Voting for palloc_noerror() as well.
I don't like that name. It very well can error out. E.g. because of the allocation size. And we definitely do not want to ignore that case. How about palloc_try()? 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
